You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NCBA's Control
- Thread starter jsmith
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
jsmith said:Now more than ever cattle producers need to push back on NCBA's control over the Beef Checkoff.
http://beefcheckoff.wordpress.com/
24% of the beef checkoff went to NCBA's overhead. The CBB has a limit for itself of 5%.
Why aren't more dollars going to advertise beef instead of paying NCBA to kill needed reforms that benefit producers and don't let the meat packers take all the producer surplus in the industry through GIPSA regulations?
I read the meatpacker's words from the NCBA members that testified in Washington D.C.
They were obviously ill informed or informed by meat packers. I bet they haven't even read the GIPSA rules.
I don't want MY check off dollars going to support meat packer lies or spin in Washington D.C. to give members like Rep. Lucas more propaganda so he can say the producer collected checkoff dollars support meat packer interpretation.
Let us get real here, folks. If I am going to get screwed this badly, I want a kiss to go along with it otherwise it is is just prostitution. At least the CBB is calling the prostitutes "pretty". They don't need to be paid with producer collected check off dollars but I guess a pretty girl can get her way a lot!!!!
The CBB should never have gotten in bed with a meat packer thinking dominated group like the NCBA.
Tex
nenmrancher
Well-known member
Tex, do you honestly think it would be any different if it was controled by a sue happy group or the goverment save me organizations? Dont matter who controls the purse strings sooner or later they will find a way to dip into the pot and either profit for themselves or their organization.
nenmrancher said:Tex, do you honestly think it would be any different if it was controled by a sue happy group or the goverment save me organizations? Dont matter who controls the purse strings sooner or later they will find a way to dip into the pot and either profit for themselves or their organization.
nemrancher, what you say may be true but it doesn't have to be. The people paying for the checkoff deserve better.
The bad thing about the world we live in is that everyone is so cynical because they have seen what you have described over and over again.
It is part of what we have to change if we want to be successful at using check off funds to fund programs that create more demand for beef instead of going to pay for what meat packers want over what the people paying for the checkoff want.
If it were up to me and I were running the CBB, I would just tell NCBA that they have not been successful with the money given and in fact have worked for meat packer interests over producer interests and cut them off quickly.
We don't have to go with the status quo. When things are wrong, one needs to change them, sometimes drastically. Evil only exists because good men do nothing. If you are one of those good men doing nothing, you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Tex
nenmrancher
Well-known member
Tex, I would be worried if you or some of the others who post on here where ever appointed to the CBB. Just because of what you have posted on this site I would be leary that you would be nothing more than a mouth piece for RCalf and would do your best to push their agenda and there are others on here that I would be just as leary of coming from the other direction. That is why I said in another post that anyone serving on the CBB, the federation or any checkoff related comittee should have no ties to any state or national organization while they serve on the committee and should only serve a limited term and then not be allowed back on the committee or board for at least 10 years. Thats the only way new leadership will come to be and will allow for younger producers to have a seat at the table. It will also get rid of some crusty old farts that have nothing better to do than fight with each other.
nenmrancher said:Tex, I would be worried if you or some of the others who post on here where ever appointed to the CBB. Just because of what you have posted on this site I would be leary that you would be nothing more than a mouth piece for RCalf and would do your best to push their agenda and there are others on here that I would be just as leary of coming from the other direction. That is why I said in another post that anyone serving on the CBB, the federation or any checkoff related comittee should have no ties to any state or national organization while they serve on the committee and should only serve a limited term and then not be allowed back on the committee or board for at least 10 years. Thats the only way new leadership will come to be and will allow for younger producers to have a seat at the table. It will also get rid of some crusty old farts that have nothing better to do than fight with each other.
Nemrancher, change of direction takes a little more energy and motivation than just going with the current flow.
I think we are at that point where we need to change direction. I don't think rcalf (which I am not a member of) would moderate as they got the direction changed. I have met quite few rcalf members and they want what is best for cattle producers -- not just what meat packers want. Many times there is divergence in the interests. Sometimes there is synergy. I think meat packers have been able to capitalize on the check off through emphasizing the synergies while having their members push meat packer interests in Washington. There definitely needs to be some real change there.
I think anyone on the CBB or the other boards need to know the difference between meat packer interests and cattle producer interests. Many are just not sophisticated to understand those differences.
When the checkoff is funded by taxing meat packers and then giving control of that tax revenue to cattle producers, the tables would be changed. One has to recognize these differences and just because you are a newbie on the board, doesn't mean you automatically know them.
The big meat packers have huge financial interests in the substitute meats--- pork and chicken. A competent member of the CBB would recognize this as a difference and would be careful to make sure that the checkoff funds were not being wasted or in any way advantaging the meat packers in these other interests. If there was a chicken checkoff and cattle producers had control of those chicken check off dollars the tables would be turned once again.
One can look at the cases and reasons the meat packers would lie to cattle producers about what the GIPSA rules actually mean to them. The NCBA has been less than forthright on this subject and that robs them of their credibility. It is because they are not just cattle producers, but meat packers also (who have interests in the substitutes).
To make sure you understand these issues in the depth required, could you please explain the "harm to competition" GIPSA rule and what it means? What do meat packers say it means and what does GIPSA say it means (hint---look it up in the Code of Federal regulations--GIPSA explained it).
Tex
nenmrancher
Well-known member
Tex, one of the big problems I have with folks like you and the Rcalfers is that you look at the packers as the enemy that should be disposed of rather than a needed part of the system to get our product to market. Can things be done better you bet, but to me what you and Rcalf are preaching is just as extreme as what you acuse NCBA of doing or not doing. I just dont see from everything that I have read and listened to at meetings that Rcalf has any intentions of mellowing and from what you post on here I dont think it you would mellow in your opinions or attitudes until you put every big packing company out of buisness.
nenmrancher said:Tex, one of the big problems I have with folks like you and the Rcalfers is that you look at the packers as the enemy that should be disposed of rather than a needed part of the system to get our product to market. Can things be done better you bet, but to me what you and Rcalf are preaching is just as extreme as what you acuse NCBA of doing or not doing. I just dont see from everything that I have read and listened to at meetings that Rcalf has any intentions of mellowing and from what you post on here I dont think it you would mellow in your opinions or attitudes until you put every big packing company out of buisness.
Nemrancher, meat packers are needed in the industry but they should not use their pricing power to price discriminate to push market prices as a whole down or to engage in false or inaccurate weighing of livestock, or to cheat the producers.
These things have been happening. Just because it hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
I don't see anyone in the chain of beef production as an "enemy". They are either honest businessmen in the industry which would mean they are a great part of the food chain, or they use their power to cheat others out of the value of their products by breaking the laws on the books and stealing producer value.
Meat packers are necessary to get the product out. That is not to be discounted. If they are using their power to break the economic protections in the Packers and Stockyards Act, then they are pushing down prices in order to out compete the other meat packers with producer's value. It is unlawful and producers should be compensated for it. It is the only way to get them to perform their proper function in the industry instead of using producer value to consolidate the industry.
Sometimes the truth is a little hard to believe when you aren't the one being affected.
Tex
