• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Nebraska check-off news

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=46&u_sid=1399430

I think that, for the most part, the checkoff is a good thing to have. However, I think it is obvious the powers that be need to be thinking about tweaking it a bit or they're going to lose it.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker said:
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=46&u_sid=1399430

I think that, for the most part, the checkoff is a good thing to have. However, I think it is obvious the powers that be need to be thinking about tweaking it a bit or they're going to lose it.

The fact remains that, due to some LMA leaders ire at NCBA for members' supporting certain projects, those LMA people decided to "go after the Checkoff to get NCBA" in the words of Herman Schumacher.

Now, it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. If justice prevails there, and they declare it is Constitutional, will it really be over so we can continue with the great work that has raised beef demand to the point our markets have held and even increased IN SPITE OF increased imports from Canada over the past several months? Or will they attack from another angle?

MRJ
MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
The biggest complaint I see (and share) is the checkoff including foreign beef - it makes absolutley no sense. I think that if this was dropped and the checkoff would morph into a US beef deal only, a lot of resistance would drop. I understand why the packers would want this, but I don't understand why some producers feel this is worth fighting for.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker,

You are obviously too naive about marketing to realize that marketing U.S. beef, when 95% of the labeled beef would be U.S. beef, is absolutely meaningless to the average consumer. It's not like most consumers would have a choice.

If 40% of the labeled beef was foreign, then the argument would have more validity. When you do nothing but isolate Canadian beef and Mexican beef as 5% of the labeled beef, Country of Origin labeling is absolutely meaningless to the average consumer. All expense and no benefit. Symbolism over substance.

Why look past New Zealand lamb sales in the U.S. to see this. Frankly, if I was Canada, I would support isolating their highly marbled product at the expense of naive U.S. producers. The only risk would be R-CULT and their clones continuing to lie about the safety of Canadian beef.

Then the hypocrites don't want a traceback system to confirm the label. It's like watching a monkey........never mind.



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Have you ever heard the concept of "CONSUMER DRIVEN" or has it always been "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES AGAIN" for you?

If consumers wanted it, retailers would provide it. Source verification has a lot more value than country of Origin and guess who prohibited that?

Once again, the brilliant minds at R-CULT!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Have you ever heard the concept of "CONSUMER DRIVEN" or has it always been "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES AGAIN" for you?

If consumers wanted it, retailers would provide it. Source verification has a lot more value than country of Origin and guess who prohibited that?

Once again, the brilliant minds at R-CULT!


~SH~

Have you ever put on gloves before your hands got cold?
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
"If consumers wanted it, retailers would provide it."

So you'd also agree that if retailers didn't provide it then consumers didn't want it?

Symbolic logic proves the 2 statements analagous, but we know good marketing includes assuming risks that may or may not payoff. Years ago Walmart INTRODUCED a case ready chuck that is now a famous study on consumer preferance. We're all glad Walmart risked their money to introduce the offering rather than opting for the SH doctrine of "hey if it ain't bein done, it cain't be done"

You may also be interested to know that some checkoff supporters petitiones the government to "save us from ourselves" and enforce a checkoff.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S.: "......than opting for the SH doctrine of "hey if it ain't bein done, it cain't be done"

I guess the "make it up as you go" concept has caught on with you as well huh?

I have always supported consumer driven branded beef products as opposed to a meaningless generic country of origin label. How would you arrive at your "so called" SH doctrine from that?

Please don't drink and type!



~SH~
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
Sandhusker, some of the foreign beef pays a checkoff tax, and we could also derive net checkoff tax at boxed level and impose that. I'm not sure this amount is a significant issue, but hey, if it smoothes out checkoff opponents and is fair, no one would oppose it.

I support all checkoff criticisms being aired, and let's find a way to get along. Now I'll assure you, the LMA isn't going to like what we do unless it includes ginning calves through salebarns like its 1956.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
guess the "make it up as you go" concept has caught on with you as well huh?

I have always supported consumer driven branded beef products as opposed to a meaningless generic country of origin label. How would you arrive at your "so called" SH doctrine from that?


In the same post that included the SH doctrine is a quote I lifted from your previous post stating "If consumers wanted it, retailers would provide it." The SH doctrine IS A LOGICAL DERIVATION FROM YOUR POST. Make **** up like hell, I derived a logically acceptible position from your nonsense.

For the record, I'm not presently drinking alcohol, but if I were, I'd still be more coherant than to miss this logical comedy.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Brad S said:
Sandhusker, some of the foreign beef pays a checkoff tax, and we could also derive net checkoff tax at boxed level and impose that. I'm not sure this amount is a significant issue, but hey, if it smoothes out checkoff opponents and is fair, no one would oppose it.

I support all checkoff criticisms being aired, and let's find a way to get along. Now I'll assure you, the LMA isn't going to like what we do unless it includes ginning calves through salebarns like its 1956.

I realize foreign cattle have to pay the check-off as well. I'm all for leaving them out of the whole deal.

The LMA can do whatever they feel they need to do. People will use whatever sales medium they feel gives them the best buck. If sale barns want business, they might need to do things a bit different than they did in 1956 .

If folks want the checkoff, they may need to do things a bit different as well. I think they need to ask themselves if the issues that have made opponents of the checkoff is worth hanging on to at the risk of losing everything. Maybe a concession or two would settle things down a bit?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S.: "The SH doctrine IS A LOGICAL DERIVATION FROM YOUR POST."

Brad S.: "Make s*** up like hell, I derived a logically acceptible position from your nonsense."

Wrong Brad, you reached an illogical conclusion from what I posted. What I posted was in plain English. You even asked............

Brad S. (previous): "So you'd also agree that if retailers didn't provide it then consumers didn't want it?"

If you are going to reach your own conclusions, WHY ASK????

Logical derivations do not end in question marks.


Your illogical conclusion ("so called" SH doctrine) .............

Brad S.: "hey if it ain't bein done, it cain't be done"

I never said anything even close to that. Your logical derivation is flawed at best.

What I said was that if consumers were asking for it, retailers could provide it. What's so complex about that? That is not to say that all good ideas are derived from consumers. Hell Hormel's 10 minute microwavable products are proof of that. Consumers didn't come up with the Flat Iron Steak either.

A product that adds value to the chuck and round is hardly comparable to a generic Country of Origin Label on commodity beef.

The fact is, generic "country of Origin" labeling has already been tested with other products. Consumers care more about "VALUE" than they care about "Country of Origin". Country of Origin Labeling is "symbolism over substance".




~SH~
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
SH, "What I said was that if consumers were asking for it, retailers could provide it."

Well what you posted was actually, "If consumers wanted it, retailers would provide it."

If you accept if a then b then you must accept if not b than not a


I know you cannot accept what I called the SH doctrine, thus your assertion quoted above doesn't stand. That is my point. Sometimes creative marketing builds a consumer demand where there was none, and this is contrary to the assertion "If consumers wanted it, retailers would provide it." As in the example ofthe case ready chucks. There existed a time when they were unavailable. does that mean consumers didn't want itt? NO it means they weren't yet exposed to it.


I'll agree with your assertion that just because it hasn't been done does not prove consumers want it (this is what you were shooting at ) when you post "The fact is, generic "country of Origin" labeling has already been tested with other products. Consumers care more about "VALUE" than they care about "Country of Origin". Country of Origin Labeling is "symbolism over substance" Value (you used the word value which is different than lowest price) includes quality evaluation, and either the consumer perceives US beef as good/high quality or it doesn't. Either way good or bad we should promote US beef. If nothing else, this will insulate us from market shakeups arround the globe. You can remember how the hoof and mouth outbreak in the UK rocked US mrkets.

Now, you are wrong saying consumers can decipher value without origin. Which would you rather eat, a Washington apple or a Colorado apple. If you're buying a couple new pairs of fencing pliars you want China or US origine.

If a majority of cattlemen can force all cattle owners to comply with a checkoff tax, a country of origine tax should be dealt with similarly, and tha is what Sandhusker put forward in this thread. Furthermore, a country of origine, traceback, checkoff package deal would go along way to taking the checkoff isue out of the courts and uniting the industry (I know the LMA never will support the checkoff and they are significantly responsible for where we are at now).
 

Latest posts

Top