• 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, the primary contractor for beef checkoff funds

Help Support Ranchers.net:

H

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
5
Location
Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Callicrate [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 6:45 AM
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: NCBA, the primary contractor for beef checkoff funds is selling us down the river

The PRIMARY CONTRACTOR for beef checkoff funds wants to gut mandatory COOL and kill it completely. It's little wonder. Importers pay the beef checkoff as well - at a formula that equates to $1 per head. In America, only fifty cents of the dollar per head collected is actually mandated for the Beef Board, which gives the majority of the money to NCBA for "contract work". Individual states have the option of keeping the other fifty cents and some do. Guess where the beef checkoff primary contractor's loyalties lie? Certainly not with American ranchers. NCBA's recent track record: 1) open the Canadian borders immediately to live cattle and beef; 2) opposes mandatory COOL; 3) supports CAFTA. The primary contractor for beef checkoff funds is selling us down the river and we're funding the movement.
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
Haymaker ,CAFTA will lower the tariffs on US beef going south for the tourist trade. Could you please explain how that will hurt cattle prices?
Click to expand...

YES,I will right after you explain to me and other cattle men how the PACKERS brain washed you into believing there will be enough beef going south to warrant a reduction in tariffs..........good luck
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
Haymaker ,CAFTA will lower the tariffs on US beef going south for the tourist trade. Could you please explain how that will hurt cattle prices?
Click to expand...

The opposition to CAFTA is not about lowering tariffs:

"Under the Trade Promotion Act of 2002, cattle and beef are required to be classified as perishable and cyclical products, and because of this provision, a special safeguard must be put into place to ensure that rising imports and collapsing exports do not impede upon cattle producers' ability to compete globally," Peterson explained. "CAFTA does not permit the United States to have any special safeguards against beef and live cattle import surges, but it does allow Costa Rica and Nicaragua to impose special safeguards against U.S. beef exports. Denying U.S. cattle producers special safeguards is a step backward from the progress made in the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement prototype."

Peterson added that CAFTA also allows cattle produced in nations like Brazil and Argentina to be shipped north to be slaughtered in Central America, thus providing preferential treatment to non-participating countries.

"Trade agreements need to have a "born and raised" standard for country of origin," he pointed out. "Instead, CAFTA gives preferential treatment for beef based only on where an animal is slaughtered.
 
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Haymaker ,CAFTA will lower the tariffs on US beef going south for the tourist trade. Could you please explain how that will hurt cattle prices?
Click to expand...

The opposition to CAFTA is not about lowering tariffs:

"Under the Trade Promotion Act of 2002, cattle and beef are required to be classified as perishable and cyclical products, and because of this provision, a special safeguard must be put into place to ensure that rising imports and collapsing exports do not impede upon cattle producers' ability to compete globally," Peterson explained. "CAFTA does not permit the United States to have any special safeguards against beef and live cattle import surges, but it does allow Costa Rica and Nicaragua to impose special safeguards against U.S. beef exports. Denying U.S. cattle producers special safeguards is a step backward from the progress made in the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement prototype."

Peterson added that CAFTA also allows cattle produced in nations like Brazil and Argentina to be shipped north to be slaughtered in Central America, thus providing preferential treatment to non-participating countries.

"Trade agreements need to have a "born and raised" standard for country of origin," he pointed out. "Instead, CAFTA gives preferential treatment for beef based only on where an animal is slaughtered.
Click to expand...

Big Muddy- I would think that CAFTA would be a concern for Canadian cattlemen too-- As I understand it, once in place these Central American countries could ship in all the South American cattle they want- slaughter them- send them north thru CAFTA and on north of the 49th thru NAFTA....Since it doesn't have to be labeled to Country of Origin you would not know where all the cheap beef was coming from...And no matter how efficient Canadians are I don't think they can compete with places like Brazil that still has slave labor....As of now the quality of beef isn't there in those countries, but with the multinationals pouring billions into building up farms, ranches, genetics, feedlots, and slaughter facilities it won't take long.....I just don't think CAFTA has enough protections in it....
 
More later, but for now......it is apparent that understanding of just how much harm this bunch is doing to the cattle industry in their zeal to destroy the infrastructure that created the best, most desired beef in the world must be setting in and they are trying to find scapegoats.

The rhetoric is getting a little shrill as they seek to cover their own behinds by attacking those who are trying to find ways to increase the benefit to the producer in the system we have rather than tear it apart.

Reader, is there no possibility at all that your friends and relatives are just a bit jealous of a competing neighbor? It does happen. Actually, Argentine and other imported grass fed beef has been quite a hit in major eastern USA cities for several years. I believe Agman also pointed out how well some from the Pacific, was it New Zealand sold on the west coast USA. RobertMac also has great success selling his product. That is what many of us who use our own beef have eaten for more than a hundred years in the experience of my family, and surely others. Butchering it in the fall while the animal is still gaining weight is considered the optimum timing in the northern mid-west, at least.

More later.......

MRJ
 
More later, but for now......it is apparent that understanding of just how much harm this bunch is doing to the cattle industry in their zeal to destroy the infrastructure that created the best, most desired beef in the world must be setting in and they are trying to find scapegoats.

MRJ, If the US has the best and safest beef in the world, what advantage is it to any of us to bring in inferior product without being able to differentiate it? Why did we bother with investing millions upon millions to create this "best in the world" product if we are just going to end up mixing it with everybody elses?
 
Sandhusker, how much of a fuss would you be making if imported beef was exempt from the Beef Checkoff, and they were using the amount they would have had to pay into it to advertise the benefits of their healthful grass fed low fat beef, or their barley fed high vitamin E beef, or their low cost cooked or processed beef?

The investments of the "millions upon millions" as you put it, to develop the "best in the world" beef system has seen huge amounts invested by packers in the improved safety systems, just one of which is HACCP which has decreased incidences of e coli dramatically. There have been many dollars invested by private businesses and governments to make imported beef equally safe as ours. There have been MANY research projects with checkoff dollars that show the health benefits of beef, not to mention all the dollars, checkoff and industry both, spent to develop new products. There have been real benefits to producers from this.

Do you really believe all imported beef is inferior to ANY and ALL beef produced in the USA?

Do you really believe that NO imported beef is equal to our best beef?

Do you think adding lean imported beef to our fatty beef trimmings to bring the fat content of hamburger down is harmful to the US cattle prices?

The cattle producers who were involved in drafting the legislation enabling the vote that resulted in the Beef Checkoff believed our industry would be better off with control of how the checkoff on imported beef was used, and that it should be used to promote the entire beef industry. Recognition of the possibility of using imported cattle with US grains to add value would benefit US producers, stocker growers, feeders, and, yes, even packers and retailers made sense then and still does today.

When we get that consumer driven labeling law making uniform standards for quality, we will be giving consumers the opportunity to put their money where only their mouth has been in claims they want COOL.

MRJ
 
MRJ said:
Sandhusker, how much of a fuss would you be making if imported beef was exempt from the Beef Checkoff, and they were using the amount they would have had to pay into it to advertise the benefits of their healthful grass fed low fat beef, or their barley fed high vitamin E beef, or their low cost cooked or processed beef?

Reply; I wouldn't be making a fuss at all. They can do with their product and advertising as they see fit. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to intentionally put your competitions product at the same level as yours.

The investments of the "millions upon millions" as you put it, to develop the "best in the world" beef system has seen huge amounts invested by packers in the improved safety systems, just one of which is HACCP which has decreased incidences of e coli dramatically. There have been many dollars invested by private businesses and governments to make imported beef equally safe as ours. There have been MANY research projects with checkoff dollars that show the health benefits of beef, not to mention all the dollars, checkoff and industry both, spent to develop new products. There have been real benefits to producers from this.

Reply; You are right. You're exactly right (except maybe for the imported beef part). So who throw away this investment by opening the doors to everybody else's product? It's like spending $50,000 per bull - and then not putting up a fence so your neighbor's currs get in with your cows, too.

Do you really believe all imported beef is inferior to ANY and ALL beef produced in the USA?

Do you really believe that NO imported beef is equal to our best beef?

Reply; You think I can't find a quote from NCBA that says we have the best beef in the world? :wink: :wink: , nudge, nudge.

Do you think adding lean imported beef to our fatty beef trimmings to bring the fat content of hamburger down is harmful to the US cattle prices?

The cattle producers who were involved in drafting the legislation enabling the vote that resulted in the Beef Checkoff believed our industry would be better off with control of how the checkoff on imported beef was used, and that it should be used to promote the entire beef industry. Recognition of the possibility of using imported cattle with US grains to add value would benefit US producers, stocker growers, feeders, and, yes, even packers and retailers made sense then and still does today.

Reply; The checkoff could not stop Brazil from pushing Brazilian beef if they wanted - what control do you think there is over foreign beef? When has it ever made sense for a business man to promote their competitor's product? Would you please name me one industry that follows that?.
Tell me how you, as a South Dakota producer, profits from any retailer selling Canadian roasts or steaks.


When we get that consumer driven labeling law making uniform standards for quality, we will be giving consumers the opportunity to put their money where only their mouth has been in claims they want COOL.

MRJ
Click to expand...
 
NCBA's recent track record:

1) open the Canadian borders immediately to live cattle and beef;

NCBA sees the bigger picture.

Unlike R-CULT/OCM, NCBA realizes that any food safety presidence we establish against Canada, we will have to live with in the event that BSE is discovered here again.

Either the precautionary measures taken by Canada are adequate for both Canada and the U.S. or they are adequate for neither of us.

In contrast, R-CULT/OCM is risking the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption (domestic production) with their BSE "fear mongering" and lying about the safety of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption (Canadian live cattle) to stop Canadian imports.

Kudos NCBA!


2) opposes mandatory COOL;

Once again, NCBA sees the bigger picture.

Mandatory COOL, as written, is an absolute joke. This flawed law exempted 75% of the imported beef and prohibited the means to enforce it.

Even you, Mike Callicrate, proved that we don't need a government mandate to provide "U.S. born and raised" beef IF CONSUMERS ASKED FOR IT.

Kudos NCBA!


3) supports CAFTA.

Once again, NCBA has the bigger picture.

NCBA supports reductions in tarriffs to gain better access for our export markets.

In contrast, R-CULT/OCM can't see past the word "import" to the bigger trade picture.

Kudos NCBA!


~SH~
 
Sandhusker said:
MRJ said:
Sandhusker, how much of a fuss would you be making if imported beef was exempt from the Beef Checkoff, and they were using the amount they would have had to pay into it to advertise the benefits of their healthful grass fed low fat beef, or their barley fed high vitamin E beef, or their low cost cooked or processed beef?

Reply; I wouldn't be making a fuss at all. They can do with their product and advertising as they see fit. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to intentionally put your competitions product at the same level as yours.

The investments of the "millions upon millions" as you put it, to develop the "best in the world" beef system has seen huge amounts invested by packers in the improved safety systems, just one of which is HACCP which has decreased incidences of e coli dramatically. There have been many dollars invested by private businesses and governments to make imported beef equally safe as ours. There have been MANY research projects with checkoff dollars that show the health benefits of beef, not to mention all the dollars, checkoff and industry both, spent to develop new products. There have been real benefits to producers from this.

Reply; You are right. You're exactly right (except maybe for the imported beef part). So who throw away this investment by opening the doors to everybody else's product? It's like spending $50,000 per bull - and then not putting up a fence so your neighbor's currs get in with your cows, too.

Do you really believe all imported beef is inferior to ANY and ALL beef produced in the USA?

Do you really believe that NO imported beef is equal to our best beef?

Reply; You think I can't find a quote from NCBA that says we have the best beef in the world? :wink: :wink: , nudge, nudge.

[MRJ: Sorry that all you can do is make snide comments to keep from having to answer whether or not YOU believe all imported beef is equal in quality to USA produced beef. Well, DO you? We do have the option to differentiate our US product with a label, voluntarily. If consumers see value in that, they will drive the market for such labeling.]

Do you think adding lean imported beef to our fatty beef trimmings to bring the fat content of hamburger down is harmful to the US cattle prices?

The cattle producers who were involved in drafting the legislation enabling the vote that resulted in the Beef Checkoff believed our industry would be better off with control of how the checkoff on imported beef was used, and that it should be used to promote the entire beef industry. Recognition of the possibility of using imported cattle with US grains to add value would benefit US producers, stocker growers, feeders, and, yes, even packers and retailers made sense then and still does today.

Reply; The checkoff could not stop Brazil from pushing Brazilian beef if they wanted - what control do you think there is over foreign beef? When has it ever made sense for a business man to promote their competitor's product? Would you please name me one industry that follows that?.
Tell me how you, as a South Dakota producer, profits from any retailer selling Canadian roasts or steaks.

[MRJ: Your customers and I, as a SD cattle producer, both are getting the highest prices ever in our history, even while we are importing more beef than ever before from Canada. Yet your group focuses on doom and gloom. What an agenda!]


When we get that consumer driven labeling law making uniform standards for quality, we will be giving consumers the opportunity to put their money where only their mouth has been in claims they want COOL.

MRJ
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

MRJ
 
MRJ, "[MRJ: Sorry that all you can do is make snide comments to keep from having to answer whether or not YOU believe all imported beef is equal in quality to USA produced beef. Well, DO you? We do have the option to differentiate our US product with a label, voluntarily. If consumers see value in that, they will drive the market for such labeling.]

My honest answer - I think the best beef in the world comes from Kansas North to the tree line (yes, that includes Canada).

I firmly believe the reason more consumers are not asking for US beef is because they simply don't know that is not what they're getting now. They think they're already getting it. Why would't they?

[MRJ: Your customers and I, as a SD cattle producer, both are getting the highest prices ever in our history, even while we are importing more beef than ever before from Canada. Yet your group focuses on doom and gloom. What an agenda!]

You didn't answer the question, MRJ. How do YOU profit from US consumers buying Canadian beef?
 
SH, "NCBA's recent track record:
1) open the Canadian borders immediately to live cattle and beef;
NCBA sees the bigger picture."

Is that what those 11 points say, or has that been changed?


More SH," supports CAFTA.
Once again, NCBA has the bigger picture.
NCBA supports reductions in tarriffs to gain better access for our export markets. Kudos NCBA! "

If you think the agreement is simply them lowering their tarriffs, you have no idea even what the "bigger picture" is.
 
Mr. Perjury stating NCBA's position:

1) open the Canadian borders immediately to live cattle and beef;
NCBA sees the bigger picture."

Sandhusker in response: "Is that what those 11 points say, or has that been changed?"

Mr. Perjury must have forgot about those 11 "conditional" points huh?


Sandhusker: "If you think the agreement is simply them lowering their tarriffs, you have no idea even what the "bigger picture" is."

Another statement with nothing to support it.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

More Sandhusker!


~SH~
 
SH, "Mr. Perjury must have forgot about those 11 "conditional" points huh?

So those were "conditional" now? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Please tell us what the "conditon" was.

SH, "Another statement with nothing to support it. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! "

I refer you to my first post in this string, the fourth overall. You must of missed it when you were sleeping.
 
Mr. Perjury stating NCBA's position:

1) open the Canadian borders immediately to live cattle and beef;
NCBA sees the bigger picture."

Sandhusker in response: "Is that what those 11 points say, or has that been changed?"

Mr. Perjury must have forgot about those 11 "conditional" points huh?

Sandhusker (in response): "So those were "conditional" now? Please tell us what the "conditon" was."

Hahaha! Didn't take you long to change directions. Too funny!

The 11 points were "conditions" that should be met prior to the Canadian border opening. 2 of which I personally did not agree with. I'll take your mention of these 11 points as an admission that Mr. Perjury was being less than truthful again.



~SH~
 
SH, "The 11 points were "conditions" that should be met prior to the Canadian border opening. 2 of which I personally did not agree with. I'll take your mention of these 11 points as an admission that Mr. Perjury was being less than truthful again. "

If those conditions were to be met PRIOR to the Canadian border opening, why did you say;
SH, "1) open the Canadian borders IMMEDIATELY to live cattle and beef;
NCBA sees the bigger picture. "

Who is being less than truthful? :lol:
 
Sandhusker: "If those conditions were to be met PRIOR to the Canadian border opening, why did you say;
SH, "1) open the Canadian borders IMMEDIATELY to live cattle and beef;
NCBA sees the bigger picture. "

I did not say "open the borders IMMEDIATELY to live cattle and beef". That was Mr. Perjury's statement, not mine. I knew that NCBA had initiated an 11 point directive for the opening of the Canadian border but they were not opposed to opening the Canadian border. That was R-CULT's position.

NCBA understands the reprecussions of R-CULT stating that Canadian beef is unsafe when we have the same BSE precautionary measures in place. That is the big picture.


Sandhusker: "Who is being less than truthful?"

You are, like always!



~SH~
 
I didn't realize you were quoting Calicrate - you generally use quotation marks. I thought you said the quote. I apologize for misquoting you.
 
Sandhusker: "I didn't realize you were quoting Calicrate - you generally use quotation marks."


SH (previous): "Mr. Perjury stating NCBA's position:

1) open the Canadian borders immediately to live cattle and beef;


I can see where that would be confusing to you. Apology accepted!


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top