Sandhusker
Well-known member
PORKER said:
But, Porker, we're all in this together! The big packers are our partners in industry! The more they make, the more they can pay us! :roll:
But, Porker, we're all in this together! The big packers are our partners in industry! The more they make, the more they can pay us! :roll:
PORKER
Well-known member
Sandhusker, It's too bad that every rancher and farmer didn't own stock in these multi national packers to help balance their books from the increase in stock dividends of the packers.
The level of ignorance and/or deceit exhibited in this thread is absolutely amazing!!!!!
Addressing the simplest deception, OT did show a sliver of decency in ALMOST accurately answering the question from 'ranch hand'. BUT that was ONLY after his deception causing 'ranch hand' to think the NCBA vote actually involved "running the checkoff"! To be really honest, OT should have stated it was the MEMBERS, not the leadership voting on the proposal. Further, members not attending the convention will also have a mail voting opportunity before that vote is final.
FACT: it is legal for ANY cattle producer organization to request change of the Beef Checkoff.
FACT: the nearly 31,000 member NCBA organization voted at the recent convention to go home and work toward increasing the amount of the Beef Checkoff and the method for making such a change. It will take Congressional action to allow the change, plus a vote of ALL cattle producers willing to go vote on whether or not to approve such a change.
mrj
Addressing the simplest deception, OT did show a sliver of decency in ALMOST accurately answering the question from 'ranch hand'. BUT that was ONLY after his deception causing 'ranch hand' to think the NCBA vote actually involved "running the checkoff"! To be really honest, OT should have stated it was the MEMBERS, not the leadership voting on the proposal. Further, members not attending the convention will also have a mail voting opportunity before that vote is final.
FACT: it is legal for ANY cattle producer organization to request change of the Beef Checkoff.
FACT: the nearly 31,000 member NCBA organization voted at the recent convention to go home and work toward increasing the amount of the Beef Checkoff and the method for making such a change. It will take Congressional action to allow the change, plus a vote of ALL cattle producers willing to go vote on whether or not to approve such a change.
mrj
RobertMac
Well-known member
mrj said:
Fundamental changes should start with these two....
1. There is no authority and the act and order specifically prohibits funds from being expended on programs which include deceptive acts or practices with respect to the quality, value or use of competing products.
This one says that chicken and pork can lie about their products and check-off dollars can't be used to challenge the lies.
2. There is no authority and the act and order which authorizes the expenditure of funds to be used to promote or research programs, methods or technologies which primarily relate to live cattle production or marketing.
This one says that check-off dollars can't be used to help cattle producers until after live cattle are turned into beef. We are paying for packer R&D and advertising beef including our competition's beef!
Guys, it's truly disgusting to see the unverified charges against NCBA and the Beef Checkoff.
RobertMac, you apparently are following some of the guys known for their 'crystal ball' gazing to 'see' what NCBA is, or is not doing with your claim "leadership does what they want", implying the votes of the members make no difference. Absolutely and verifiably not true!
Your 'small' implication that signatures will be gotten despite producer wishes shows you confuse NCBA with LMA, as it was the latter group who was caught with too many ineligible signers on their 'petitions' for a vote a few years back.
I use the term 'small' because it seems appropriate in the way a treasured grandmother in our family used it. One NEVER wanted to have that fine lady say "oh, that was small of him/her", as she did when someone acted in a less than honorable way.
You rather caught me by surprise, acting more like OT or Tex/Econ!
However, it is good to see you actually recognize that some good has been/is being achieved with the Beef Checkoff! But, what "fundamental changes" are you referring to? I've often stated that not every action has been perfect. Nor should it be expected to be. It IS run by cattle producers who are not necessarily experts and who may not always choose the best projects.......yet still achieve amazing results within the constraints of the law and given natural differences of opinion of the literally thousands of individual cattle producers who have been the leaders of the checkoff over the years.
Your crack about money being thrown at the checkoff is particularly foolish, IMO. You would be hard pressed to find finances any more carefully spent and more stringently accounted for and audited than Beef Checkoff funds. That, again, IS verifiable.
How many consumers would be favorably impressed with a campaign or ad telling them that the pork and chicken people have lied about their products so they should simply eat all the beef they can hold at every meal to be healthy and happy (as you have suggested).
FYI, it was cattle producers who got it into the law to not use checkoff funds for live cattle research. We already ARE funding much of that research with our tax dollars, in-state, and nationally in the Land Grant Universities. We wanted to do things no one else is doing to increase beef demand. BTW, the amount that other segments of the beef industry ADD to the beef checkoff dollars spent is significant. And verifiable!
OT, it seems likely you DO know, but don't disclose the fact that the Beefmobile is NOT connected with NCBA, which has NO association with the Beefmobile, and NEVER has. ANY cattle producer who so chooses can tell others what 'our' checkoff is doing. Lie number one for OT on this thread!
Biggest LIE by OT: is his claim that NCBA supports importing cattle or beef imports from Brazil and Argentina! FACT: the USDA proposal was for FRESH beef, NOT cattle from southern Argentina, and it has been stalled for months largely due to the FACT that NCBA is OPPOSING it! AGAIN, that is VERIFIABLE. Check the comments on the USDA site!!!! Further deception by OT: There is NO proposal on the table to accept cattle of fresh beef fom Brazil!
POINT: NCBA cannot use the checkoff to promote USA - bred, born, raised beef. USDA could decree it if they so chose, but it could result in forfeiture of the 11% of checkoff revenues importers pay.
Those are just a few of the more glaringly incorrect and/or accusations and abuses of checkoff leaders' decisions/actions posted on this site.
mrj
RobertMac, you apparently are following some of the guys known for their 'crystal ball' gazing to 'see' what NCBA is, or is not doing with your claim "leadership does what they want", implying the votes of the members make no difference. Absolutely and verifiably not true!
Your 'small' implication that signatures will be gotten despite producer wishes shows you confuse NCBA with LMA, as it was the latter group who was caught with too many ineligible signers on their 'petitions' for a vote a few years back.
I use the term 'small' because it seems appropriate in the way a treasured grandmother in our family used it. One NEVER wanted to have that fine lady say "oh, that was small of him/her", as she did when someone acted in a less than honorable way.
You rather caught me by surprise, acting more like OT or Tex/Econ!
However, it is good to see you actually recognize that some good has been/is being achieved with the Beef Checkoff! But, what "fundamental changes" are you referring to? I've often stated that not every action has been perfect. Nor should it be expected to be. It IS run by cattle producers who are not necessarily experts and who may not always choose the best projects.......yet still achieve amazing results within the constraints of the law and given natural differences of opinion of the literally thousands of individual cattle producers who have been the leaders of the checkoff over the years.
Your crack about money being thrown at the checkoff is particularly foolish, IMO. You would be hard pressed to find finances any more carefully spent and more stringently accounted for and audited than Beef Checkoff funds. That, again, IS verifiable.
How many consumers would be favorably impressed with a campaign or ad telling them that the pork and chicken people have lied about their products so they should simply eat all the beef they can hold at every meal to be healthy and happy (as you have suggested).
FYI, it was cattle producers who got it into the law to not use checkoff funds for live cattle research. We already ARE funding much of that research with our tax dollars, in-state, and nationally in the Land Grant Universities. We wanted to do things no one else is doing to increase beef demand. BTW, the amount that other segments of the beef industry ADD to the beef checkoff dollars spent is significant. And verifiable!
OT, it seems likely you DO know, but don't disclose the fact that the Beefmobile is NOT connected with NCBA, which has NO association with the Beefmobile, and NEVER has. ANY cattle producer who so chooses can tell others what 'our' checkoff is doing. Lie number one for OT on this thread!
Biggest LIE by OT: is his claim that NCBA supports importing cattle or beef imports from Brazil and Argentina! FACT: the USDA proposal was for FRESH beef, NOT cattle from southern Argentina, and it has been stalled for months largely due to the FACT that NCBA is OPPOSING it! AGAIN, that is VERIFIABLE. Check the comments on the USDA site!!!! Further deception by OT: There is NO proposal on the table to accept cattle of fresh beef fom Brazil!
POINT: NCBA cannot use the checkoff to promote USA - bred, born, raised beef. USDA could decree it if they so chose, but it could result in forfeiture of the 11% of checkoff revenues importers pay.
Those are just a few of the more glaringly incorrect and/or accusations and abuses of checkoff leaders' decisions/actions posted on this site.
mrj
Sandhusker
Well-known member
MRJ, "POINT: NCBA cannot use the checkoff to promote USA - bred, born, raised beef. USDA could decree it if they so chose, but it could result in forfeiture of the 11% of checkoff revenues importers pay. "
Fine, do it. The majority of producers have already said they want it that way. What's the holdup?
Fine, do it. The majority of producers have already said they want it that way. What's the holdup?
A
Anonymous
Guest
OT, it seems likely you DO know, but don't disclose the fact that the Beefmobile is NOT connected with NCBA, which has NO association with the Beefmobile, and NEVER has. ANY cattle producer who so chooses can tell others what 'our' checkoff is doing. Lie number one for OT on this thread!
It is wrong when the cattle producer is the NCBA Office holder- and is implying/saying that what has been accomplished because of the Beef Checkoff and the Checkoff funded Beefmobile is because of the NCBA.....
Biggest LIE by OT: is his claim that NCBA supports importing cattle or beef imports from Brazil and Argentina! FACT: the USDA proposal was for FRESH beef, NOT cattle from southern Argentina, and it has been stalled for months largely due to the FACT that NCBA is OPPOSING it! AGAIN, that is VERIFIABLE. Check the comments on the USDA site!!!! Further deception by OT: There is NO proposal on the table to accept cattle of fresh beef fom Brazil!
Maxine--How much you want to bet-that once the NCBA backed packers get the USDA to ease the restrictions on Argentine beef they will begin trying to open up Brazil.....Weakening our firewalls to disease is not a smart move for the US cattle industry- but it started with the Canadian border and is continuing....And I have seen no place where NCBA has been opposing it- except I have seen nothing positive that NCBA has done except promote Packer backed initiatives like killing M-COOL and the Packer Ownership Ban..
It is wrong when the cattle producer is the NCBA Office holder- and is implying/saying that what has been accomplished because of the Beef Checkoff and the Checkoff funded Beefmobile is because of the NCBA.....
Biggest LIE by OT: is his claim that NCBA supports importing cattle or beef imports from Brazil and Argentina! FACT: the USDA proposal was for FRESH beef, NOT cattle from southern Argentina, and it has been stalled for months largely due to the FACT that NCBA is OPPOSING it! AGAIN, that is VERIFIABLE. Check the comments on the USDA site!!!! Further deception by OT: There is NO proposal on the table to accept cattle of fresh beef fom Brazil!
Maxine--How much you want to bet-that once the NCBA backed packers get the USDA to ease the restrictions on Argentine beef they will begin trying to open up Brazil.....Weakening our firewalls to disease is not a smart move for the US cattle industry- but it started with the Canadian border and is continuing....And I have seen no place where NCBA has been opposing it- except I have seen nothing positive that NCBA has done except promote Packer backed initiatives like killing M-COOL and the Packer Ownership Ban..
Boone1
New member
I have seen no place where NCBA has been opposing it- except I have seen nothing positive that NCBA has done except promote Packer backed initiatives like killing M-COOL and the Packer Ownership Ban..[/quote]
Everyone's comments on Argentina, including NCBA's, have been posted here for two months. But here they are again:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&N=0&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&Ntt=Patagonia%20South&sid=1175B2B155E7
Here's the original thread:
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23211
Everyone's comments on Argentina, including NCBA's, have been posted here for two months. But here they are again:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&N=0&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&Ntt=Patagonia%20South&sid=1175B2B155E7
Here's the original thread:
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23211
RobertMac
Well-known member
mrj, instead of talking verifiable...bring it!!!!!!
Back when I was in NCA, if you didn't go to the convention, you didn't have a vote and the board decided what was to be brought up for a vote! And I believe it has been shown here where the board has changed policy without membership votes.
The biggest problem with beef sales has been the lie that saturated animal fats are a health risk that has been perpetuated by government, news media, and misguided scientist. Ancel Keys' fat hypothesis has never been proven and is falling apart...yet CBB bought into it and has never challenged it even though there has been scientist that have raised doubts about it from the beginning. "Fundamental changes" would be to support the healthfulness of our product and challenge popular misconceptions!!!!!
Give up doubling 89% of your income to keep 11%...now that's "small"!!!!!
Back when I was in NCA, if you didn't go to the convention, you didn't have a vote and the board decided what was to be brought up for a vote! And I believe it has been shown here where the board has changed policy without membership votes.
The biggest problem with beef sales has been the lie that saturated animal fats are a health risk that has been perpetuated by government, news media, and misguided scientist. Ancel Keys' fat hypothesis has never been proven and is falling apart...yet CBB bought into it and has never challenged it even though there has been scientist that have raised doubts about it from the beginning. "Fundamental changes" would be to support the healthfulness of our product and challenge popular misconceptions!!!!!
Give up doubling 89% of your income to keep 11%...now that's "small"!!!!!
Sandhusker, I don't happen to believe USDA needs to change the checkoff to advertise "USA born, bred, raised beef with a genuine hot iron brand on it".
The Beef Checkoff, in ALS their ads, is advertising USA beef. To be fair, if US produced beef is differentiated, 11% of the advertisements budget would have to advertise imported beef. Do you really want that? I sure don't!
That argument is simply so much bellyaching. Many people already advertise their beef as "Product of USA" now.
THat argument is a moot point. IMO, such narrow advertising should be quality, and maybe market driven.
Why would you want the lower quality beef, much of which is STILL born, raised, etc. in the USA, contrary to the beliefs of too many producers.
OT, that is a tired old claim of yours. You need to 'put up or shut up' on that mantra. The Beefmobile is NOT an NCBA project!!!! You seem to defend your right to say what you choose, yet you apparently deny that right to an NCBA member! Why is that??? MANY NCBA members KNOW that our organization has been a very strong supporter of the Beef Checkoff and are justifiably proud of the fact that, without our support it probably would not exist today, if LMA efforts to kill it had been successful.
Have you checked the NCBA testimony on the link Boone 1 provided? Thank for posting it, Boone 1.
The NCBA position AGAINST easing restrictions on Argentine beef is clear enough for even you to understand!
I know it really irks you that there are so many NCBA cattle producer members who don't agree with your views of the cattle and beef businesses. I kinda enjoy watching you fume and froth over it! It WOULD be better if you could stay honest in your criticisms and accept facts for what they are.
I'm sorry your R-CALF biases and and blinders to anything good about NCBA keep you from seeing any of the positive work of NCBA....or is it simply that you won't admit it????
RobertMac, the ones making the false, or at best ,innacurate, claims should bring the verification!
How long ago was it you were a member? Do you really believe NCBA is a static organization never making changes?
I KNOW for a fact that NCBA has long, probably always, had a system where state affiliates and individual members bring issues through the committees to the Resolutions committee, and to the floor.
The mail in ballot began a few years ago. I don't really approve, since members not present most likely do not have benefit of all the discussion of issues, so can't make a well reasoned vote.
You have no way of KNOWING whether "CBB bought into Ancel Keys' fat hypothesis", or if the position is simply because there was not enough money in the checkoff to disprove the accepted 'science' of the times. The Beef Checkoff has to abide by the rules of the Act and Order creating it.
Try to keep it honest, and accurate, boys!
mrj
The Beef Checkoff, in ALS their ads, is advertising USA beef. To be fair, if US produced beef is differentiated, 11% of the advertisements budget would have to advertise imported beef. Do you really want that? I sure don't!
That argument is simply so much bellyaching. Many people already advertise their beef as "Product of USA" now.
THat argument is a moot point. IMO, such narrow advertising should be quality, and maybe market driven.
Why would you want the lower quality beef, much of which is STILL born, raised, etc. in the USA, contrary to the beliefs of too many producers.
OT, that is a tired old claim of yours. You need to 'put up or shut up' on that mantra. The Beefmobile is NOT an NCBA project!!!! You seem to defend your right to say what you choose, yet you apparently deny that right to an NCBA member! Why is that??? MANY NCBA members KNOW that our organization has been a very strong supporter of the Beef Checkoff and are justifiably proud of the fact that, without our support it probably would not exist today, if LMA efforts to kill it had been successful.
Have you checked the NCBA testimony on the link Boone 1 provided? Thank for posting it, Boone 1.
The NCBA position AGAINST easing restrictions on Argentine beef is clear enough for even you to understand!
I know it really irks you that there are so many NCBA cattle producer members who don't agree with your views of the cattle and beef businesses. I kinda enjoy watching you fume and froth over it! It WOULD be better if you could stay honest in your criticisms and accept facts for what they are.
I'm sorry your R-CALF biases and and blinders to anything good about NCBA keep you from seeing any of the positive work of NCBA....or is it simply that you won't admit it????
RobertMac, the ones making the false, or at best ,innacurate, claims should bring the verification!
How long ago was it you were a member? Do you really believe NCBA is a static organization never making changes?
I KNOW for a fact that NCBA has long, probably always, had a system where state affiliates and individual members bring issues through the committees to the Resolutions committee, and to the floor.
The mail in ballot began a few years ago. I don't really approve, since members not present most likely do not have benefit of all the discussion of issues, so can't make a well reasoned vote.
You have no way of KNOWING whether "CBB bought into Ancel Keys' fat hypothesis", or if the position is simply because there was not enough money in the checkoff to disprove the accepted 'science' of the times. The Beef Checkoff has to abide by the rules of the Act and Order creating it.
Try to keep it honest, and accurate, boys!
mrj
Sandhusker
Well-known member
MRJ, "The Beef Checkoff, in ALS their ads, is advertising USA beef. To be fair, if US produced beef is differentiated, 11% of the advertisements budget would have to advertise imported beef. Do you really want that? I sure don't!"
How about just cut the importers loose? The money they are paying is less than the benefits that would be acheived via promoting only your product. It's like driving 50 miles to save 50 cents on a loaf of bread. Not only that, the majority of checkoff payers have said they want only US product supported. You claim the Beef Board responds to producer's wishes - what's the hold up?
MRJ, "That argument is simply so much bellyaching. Many people already advertise their beef as "Product of USA" now."
What are you going to wish you had done today when NCBA's "Partners in Industry" have an open door to import all the South American beef they want tomorrow?
MRJ, "THat argument is a moot point. IMO, such narrow advertising should be quality, and maybe market driven."
There's a difference between the NCBA thought & R-CALF's - "market driven" to NCBA is to let the market drive you, to R-CALF it is an opportunity to do the driving. If CAB took your approach, they wouldn't even exist.
MRJ, "Why would you want the lower quality beef, much of which is STILL born, raised, etc. in the USA, contrary to the beliefs of too many producers."
Because that beef is still produced under our laws and our safety standards and the consumer won't have to decide whether to trust the international mystery meat or to buy the chicken.
MRJ, "I'm sorry your R-CALF biases and and blinders to anything good about NCBA keep you from seeing any of the positive work of NCBA....or is it simply that you won't admit it???? "
And examples of that positive work would be.....?
MRJ, "You have no way of KNOWING whether "CBB bought into Ancel Keys' fat hypothesis", or if the position is simply because there was not enough money in the checkoff to disprove the accepted 'science' of the times. The Beef Checkoff has to abide by the rules of the Act and Order creating it."
Then why did they accept the unproven science that RM has talked about?
MRJ, "Try to keep it honest, and accurate, boys!"
Ummmmm, NCBA's comments on the Farm Bill? :shock: How come we have to keep it honest, but you actually defend their lies? :roll: :lol:
How about just cut the importers loose? The money they are paying is less than the benefits that would be acheived via promoting only your product. It's like driving 50 miles to save 50 cents on a loaf of bread. Not only that, the majority of checkoff payers have said they want only US product supported. You claim the Beef Board responds to producer's wishes - what's the hold up?
MRJ, "That argument is simply so much bellyaching. Many people already advertise their beef as "Product of USA" now."
What are you going to wish you had done today when NCBA's "Partners in Industry" have an open door to import all the South American beef they want tomorrow?
MRJ, "THat argument is a moot point. IMO, such narrow advertising should be quality, and maybe market driven."
There's a difference between the NCBA thought & R-CALF's - "market driven" to NCBA is to let the market drive you, to R-CALF it is an opportunity to do the driving. If CAB took your approach, they wouldn't even exist.
MRJ, "Why would you want the lower quality beef, much of which is STILL born, raised, etc. in the USA, contrary to the beliefs of too many producers."
Because that beef is still produced under our laws and our safety standards and the consumer won't have to decide whether to trust the international mystery meat or to buy the chicken.
MRJ, "I'm sorry your R-CALF biases and and blinders to anything good about NCBA keep you from seeing any of the positive work of NCBA....or is it simply that you won't admit it???? "
And examples of that positive work would be.....?
MRJ, "You have no way of KNOWING whether "CBB bought into Ancel Keys' fat hypothesis", or if the position is simply because there was not enough money in the checkoff to disprove the accepted 'science' of the times. The Beef Checkoff has to abide by the rules of the Act and Order creating it."
Then why did they accept the unproven science that RM has talked about?
MRJ, "Try to keep it honest, and accurate, boys!"
Ummmmm, NCBA's comments on the Farm Bill? :shock: How come we have to keep it honest, but you actually defend their lies? :roll: :lol:
RobertMac
Well-known member
MRJ, "You have no way of KNOWING whether "CBB bought into Ancel Keys' fat hypothesis", or if the position is simply because there was not enough money in the checkoff to disprove the accepted 'science' of the times. The Beef Checkoff has to abide by the rules of the Act and Order creating it."
The problem for cattle producers is that lie about saturated fat is being shown to be false WITHOUT any help from producer's check-off dollars.
Here is the proof that NCBA/CBB has bought into the idea saturated fats is unhealthy and is advertising it...
http://www.beefusa.org/NEWSNEWNUTRITIONADVERTISINGHELPSCORRECTMISPERCEPTIONSABOUTBEEF24180.aspx
The vast majority of consumers want COOL...NCBA is against it!!!!
The vast majority of producers want their check-off dollars advertising their product...USA Beef...NCBA is against it.
It seems NCBA is always siding with their large packer partners on the opposite side of important issues from producers and consumers...would you care to answer this question...
Do you believe that the large packers aren't going to use the same methods they have used in the pork and poultry industries in the cattle industry?
The problem for cattle producers is that lie about saturated fat is being shown to be false WITHOUT any help from producer's check-off dollars.
Here is the proof that NCBA/CBB has bought into the idea saturated fats is unhealthy and is advertising it...
http://www.beefusa.org/NEWSNEWNUTRITIONADVERTISINGHELPSCORRECTMISPERCEPTIONSABOUTBEEF24180.aspx
The vast majority of consumers want COOL...NCBA is against it!!!!
The vast majority of producers want their check-off dollars advertising their product...USA Beef...NCBA is against it.
It seems NCBA is always siding with their large packer partners on the opposite side of important issues from producers and consumers...would you care to answer this question...
Do you believe that the large packers aren't going to use the same methods they have used in the pork and poultry industries in the cattle industry?
Mike
Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Not to mention the NCBA stance on testing animals for BSE to sell to Japan. :roll: