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

Promoting superior nutrition of beef.

mrj

Well-known member
Beef Checkoff Programs are moving from emphasis simply on the enjoyment of beef as the major reason for eating it, to focus on the fantastic nutritional values of beef, according to Jay O'Brien, chair of the Cattlemens Beef Board, governing body of the national share of the Beef Checkoff dollar.

Having seen exciting results from research conducted the past few years proving that great nutrition we have long 'known' was in beef, it is gratifying that we can now advertise and educate consumers of the facts.

It has been fun to see ads pointing out that maybe 10 or 11 chicken breasts would have to be eaten to gain the same nutrients as one 3 ounce piece of beef contains, but actually showing consumers the full nutrient profile and the great recipes in "The Healthy Beef Cookbook" will doubtless gain more beef sales.

Consumers currently are on a health kick, more often searching for foods with good nutrient profiles for their families rather than simply cutting calories, starting with beef.

The Beef Checkoff has also capitalized on partnering with food service businesses. Between 2001 and 2006, the checkoff spent $2.5 million, with foodservice partners investing $138.6 million of their own money to promote new beef dishes on the menu.

One more recent of those partnerships, with Boston Market, introduced new beef menu items to their previously featured mostly rotisserie chicken, quite a coup for the beef industry.

MRJ
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
I am glad to see that you are still optimistic. I hope the people out there will listen. I am not sure that they will. The past 40 years the vegetarians, food and diet promotion people, our government, and the USDA have bad mouthed beef so badly without basing anything on facts.

So many of the industries that serve agriculture are more interested in selling huge tractors and tillage equipment, chemicals, and new and restricted varieties of seed, than they are of our health, or even of enviormental things.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Clarencen said:
I am glad to see that you are still optimistic. I hope the people out there will listen. I am not sure that they will. The past 40 years the vegetarians, food and diet promotion people, our government, and the USDA have bad mouthed beef so badly without basing anything on facts.

So many of the industries that serve agriculture are more interested in selling huge tractors and tillage equipment, chemicals, and new and restricted varieties of seed, than they are of our health, or even of enviormental things.

Clarence, I believe one of the greatest failings of myself and others who have served on the checkoff and cattlemens' org boards is that so many producers are not well informed of what has been done with checkoff money, and funds from other sources to show consumers how good beef really is.

Part of that is because we want the most possible money spent on showing consumers, not telling producers what they should be getting from their representatives on those boards. Back when I was on the SD Beef Council, we rep's. did report back to our organizations, but we probably were not aggressive enough in seeking publicity to get the info out to producers not attending the meetings.

I'm sorry you are feeling pessimistic. Seeing the bad all the time is depressing, isn't it? How long ago have you heard USDA "bad mouth beef"? I think since USDA monitoring of the Beef Checkoff is required, the people involved have necessarily learned more facts about beef nutrients and accted accordingly.

What else could we expect from people who are either vegetarian, or are promoting odd diets or seeking headlines, though? Unfortunately, they seem so have bundles of money to spend to support their anti-meat agenda. That isn't going to change. However, our Beef Checkoff people have worked very hard, and with considerable success to get those stories either out of mainstream media, or to dilute their effectiveness with factual information stories placed in magazines, newspapers, etc.

The fact that you or I may not see such stories favorable to beef does not mean they are not out there. The consumers who purchase family proteins do not necessarily read the same things we read.

I hope you are not falling into the groups who believe all corporations are bad and greedy, out to lure us into spending money we don't need to spend to make us go broke so they can buy us out, in collusion with USDA to put farmers out of business. Believing that just seems silly, and I know you are not a silly person.

I believe it is the optimistic, excited people who can see opportunities in challenges facing them and the cattle business who are going to succeed and be the cattle industry in the future.

I hope they are taking advantage of information on the Beef Checkoff website to learn what their checkoff is doing, and be part of the action rather than part of the propaganda against it.

Now, I hear Stockgrowers claim that they don't get told what the SD Beef Council is doing, and that a new member of the CBB for SD is the first person who has visited their meetings and told them anything.

Sorry, but it is the responsibility of their three representatives on the SD Beef Councils, to report to them both what the state is doing, and to report what the national CBB reps, who DO report to the SD BIC meetings, have said.

Sure, it is nice to invite the CBB directors to your meetings, but, please offer them some expense money, as state travel probably isn't covered, and of course, their time is all volunteer.

MRJ
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
MRJ:

I think you have got me wrong. I am not a pessimist. I have lived all my life on a farm or ranch, and have been in business for myself for more than a half century. I must be some sort of an optimist. still we have to look at reallity. I have supported the beef checkoff, and I still do, but it is not a cure all. Really we have not made that much progress in per- capita comsumpion of beef. Beef consumption has increased because of an increase in population. The check off has done some things that I really appreciate, but most of us counter this with the effect on our bottom line. Cattle prices are good now, maybe we have something to crow about, but that may be short lived, who knows?

I don't believe there is any problem with the producer not seeing what the checkoff and other efforts have done, this information is out there. We can either accept it or not. The real problem is making the consumers trust us. When the consumers don't trust us it creates doubt even amoung ourselves. Look at the tobacco industry, they lied and did everything to make tobacco more addictive and more attractive. We don't want our industry to look the same to them. I am not saying we are being dishonest, I just think we need to be careful how we present the facts to them. Many still believe the things they were told so overwhelmingly back in the late 1960's, and since.

Take a close look at this NCBA-RCalf tug-a-war. What causes it? Isn't a lot of it mistrust? Neither can we overlook greed, or the desire to dominate, or the power to look down on someone. I suppose that will always be with us, human nature I guess.

Part of the problem is ourselves. Sometimes we do not know when enough is enough. We see it all the time. Often, if we have the means or the money we will outbid our neighbors, then console ourselves by saying he was inefficient, or use some other excuse.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Clarence, sorry if I misunderstood your pessimism/optimism. It seemed to me you were feeling like it is pretty hopeless to try to show consumers that beef is a beneficial food.

I've been in meetings with consumer focus groups, at conventions and they sure seem friendly to ranchers and favorable to beef, along with frustrated that there are not more beef convenience products, and something to compete with chicken nuggets, etc.

The people invited, almost off the streets, for these meetings have been a pretty broad range of income, social strata, etc. Think the Checkoff staff have gone to various grocery stores to invite the consumers.

Anyway, it has been interesting. Sometimes questionnaires to find knowledge about beef have been handed out to both the consumers and the beef producers. Neither group has been stellar in their knowledge!!!

There has been good exchange of ideas, desires for the product, wish for more improvement in tenderness, uniformity, easier preparation, etc.

The checkoff has made use of the information from consumers.

As to the 'war' between NCBA and R-CALF, I collected a lot of information from ag papers, attending meetings, etc. during the period just preceding foundation of R-CALF

It's my firm conviction and many wiser than I agree, but most feel it's useless to pursue the point, that a few people angry at not prevailing in issues in NCBA decided to 'go after' them.

Pat Goggins, then pres. of Livestock Marketing Assoc. was a leader, along with his buddy, Leo McDonald and were, or are, they cohorts in the Midlands Bull Test Station?) attended and addressed many "informational meetings" set up by/at local auction markets where "facts" about "NCBA living off your Beef Checkoff" were revealed.

That was all fiction, but angry ranchers who had no knowledge of the facts were all too eager to believe it. Thus, the 'petition drive' to end the Beef Checkoff was begun, and as Herman Schumacher of SD stated, "we had to go after the Beef Checkoff to stop NCBA".

It failed badly, and 'they' refused to believe that, claiming it was scuttled by USDA. Using that as more 'fodder' to feed the unrest in cattle country, (I may not have the sequence exact here).

Somewhere along the way, R-CALF was born. Stopping imports from Canada and elsewhere were also involved, and that may have been the issue that NCBA members refusal to support which sort of began the whole thing. The fact that Pat G. wanted to be pres. of NCBA and was turned down did not improve matters, either.

Aside from the tragedy of truth being trampled so often by the group, I've no problem with another cattle org for people who only want to sell cattle, not beef, and such, but their handing over money by the bushel to lawyers seems a tragic waste with so much of it coming from ranchers who will be hard-pressed to stay in business when times get tougher.

It seems the issue of R-CALF using major media to sow the seeds of fear in consumers over beef safety is the only thing, other than defending itself from their attacks, that NCBA has had made any public statement regarding R-CALF over in public, so the fuss seems quite one-sided. It will work itself out, eventually.

I realize the beef checkoff isn't a cure all. It couldn't be. It was designed to do some things to improve the sale of beef that no one else was doing, especially to prove that the health benefits were not properly recognized. I truly believe that will be the biggest benefit to all of us in the cattle/beef business in the near future.

Also, having the documentation for our animal welfare, safety, nutritient profile, etc. will be extremely beneficial in countering attacks on our industry by those who would end animal agriculture, for one.

Do you, by the way, have any of your plant books for sale?

Wishing you a blessed 2007.

Maxine Jones
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Tell me, MRJ, if the NCBA lost their contracts with the beef board, what would happen to their staffing levels?

A better question would be "what would happen to the progress that the Beef Checkoff has made in showing consumers how beef is healthful, nutritient rich, and a great value for the money they pay?"

However, the contracting agent for the Beef Checkoff projects is the Federation Division of NCBA and it is NOT, repeat IS NOT the Policy Division. Contracts are on a cost recovery only basis.

The Federation Division is simply the national body of the state Beef Councils. Those members are representatives sent from virtually every state and national cattle org. in the nation, INCLUDING members of R-CALF. Ditto for the Cattlemens' Beef Board. They are the only ones determining Checkoff spending.

The Policy Division is the people who are members of state affiliates, and NCBA. They determine the policy issues NCBA supports in Washington and elsewhere.

Staff works and records time appropriately, in 15 minute increments. Policy/Dues payer division pays for it's share of time and Federation Division/and/or CBB pays for their own time share.

The Firewalls are verifiable, and very well observed and accounted for.

You really shouldn't delude yourself into believing that NCBA is going to disappear just because you hope it will! Cattlemen have recognized the importance of having a viable national organization for well over 100 years now, and are not likely to stop anytime soon.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
MRJ in Sask. we pay a checkoff to promote beef thru the Beef Information Center. (BIC). Money well spent in my opinion.
I am involved in Sask Prairie Conservation Action Plan. The conservation community in Sask is very Pro ranching as the feel it is very environmentaly friendly.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
A better question would be "why didn't you answer the question"? :lol: :lol:


OK, OK. I'll answer your silly question........if you will try to find something useful to do so I can get back to work!

I have a feeling NCBA dues paying cattle producer members realize better than most non-member cattle producers the immense values of checkoff programs to our business.

Therefore, we probably would do our own thing, removing staff from the checkoff to work in a closed system or group of beef production and marketing alliances which would not have to observe the constraints of the current checkoff.

That would enable CATTLE PRODUCERS who are serious about selling BEEF to benefit from our efforts, and leave those who are not back in the commodity bin.

My point is, NCBA is not going to disappear if the checkoff ends, or is "taken away from NCBA"........and will probably get even bigger and better.

BMR......good for you. Hasn't the Canadian 'checkoff' had a part in selling so much beef in Canada since the border closure, especially cow beef? You have had a tough deal and some of you are doing yoemans work in helping to make the best of a bad deal, IMO.

Great that your conservation outfit sees the reality of benefits of cattle ranching to the environment.........Suppose I'll get hassled over this, too, but NCBA has done tremendous work to get that going in the USA to counter the eco-freako stand that all productive uses of land is bad.

MRJ
 

fedup2

Well-known member
MRJ writes: [Therefore, we probably would do our own thing, removing staff from the checkoff to work in a closed system or group of beef production and marketing alliances which would not have to observe the constraints of the current checkoff.
That would enable CATTLE PRODUCERS who are serious about selling BEEF to benefit from our efforts, and leave those who are not back in the commodity bin.

MRJ writes: [“My point is, NCBA is not going to disappear if the checkoff ends, or is "taken away from NCBA"........and will probably get even bigger and better.”]


If the NCBA could get bigger & better at representing the cattle producer by getting rid of the check off,(getting rid of it by letting someone else take it over) why do they want it? If you are constrained by the checkoff and could do a better job by getting rid of that constraint, why wouldn't you? Aren’t cattle ‘producers’ supposed to be the people they are representing? Or have their priorities changed? Ya better straighten me out as I am confused again.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Fedup,

Can you provide one example of misuse of beef checkoff funds?

If not, what's your problem this time?

Must be the letters NCBA huh? Can't think for yourself again huh?


~SH~
 

fedup2

Well-known member
SH writes: Can you provide one example of misuse of beef checkoff funds? If not, what's your problem this time?
Must be the letters NCBA huh? Can't think for yourself again huh?

See what I mean SH! You cannot even comprehend the simplest statement or questions that I ask MRJ.
No Where have I attacked the checkoff! I have always backed it! I have said it needs some changes but it is neccessary!

By implying I claimed the checkoff funds were missused, you LIED again!
Its getting to be a habit with you!

MY question to MRJ, (and I'll try to make this so simple that even you can understand it) is that in her post she implys that the NCBA doesn't need to run the checkoff and that they would even be bigger and better without it! She claimed it actually constrained them. So why do they fool with it. If they could do a better job representing the producers whom they are supposed to represent, why not pass the checkoff to someone else?

SH, give it up. Get some medication. :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
See what I mean F'ed up?

You can't even comprehend the simplest of statements.

MRJ says: "My point is, NCBA is not going to disappear if the checkoff ends, or is "taken away from NCBA"........and will probably get even bigger and better"

To which you respond........

Fed up: "If the NCBA could get bigger & better at representing the cattle producer by getting rid of the check off,(getting rid of it by letting someone else take it over) why do they want it? If you are constrained by the checkoff and could do a better job by getting rid of that constraint, why wouldn't you?"

Nowhere did MRJ say that the NCBA would get bigger and better AS A RESULT OF NOT HAVING THE CHECKOFF OR THAT THEY WERE CONSTRAINED BY IT. That was your spin job again. She simply suggested that the NCBA wasn't dependant on the checkoff for their survival.

You always have to put your deceptive spin on anything that's stated. Typical deceptive blamer!


~SH~
 

fedup2

Well-known member
I don't know why I even bother!

MRJ writes: My point is, NCBA is not going to disappear if the checkoff ends, or is "taken away from NCBA"........AND WILL PROBABLY GET EVEN BIGGER AND BETTER.

MRJ writes: Therefore, we probably would do our own thing, removing staff from the checkoff to work in a closed system or group of beef production and marketing alliances which WOULD NOT HAVE TO OBSERVE THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE CURRENT CHECKOFF!

SH writes: Nowhere did MRJ say that the NCBA would get bigger and better AS A RESULT OF NOT HAVING THE CHECKOFF OR THAT THEY WERE CONSTRAINED BY IT.
:shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll:

You have to be high on something! NO one could be that stupid!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ did not say that the NCBA would get bigger and better as a result of getting rid of the checkoff.

You put your own spin on it.

Yes, you are that stupid if you don't think anyone is going to pick up on your deception.


~SH~
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Evolution of the Check-Off-Dollars

In the mid 1950's, The National Livestock and Meat Board, which is packer owned and controlled, appointed a National Meat Promotion Committee to coordinate beef,pork and lamb promotions. This program did not set well with cattlemen.

When Jay Taylor became president of American National Cattlemen's Association in 1954, he called on the National Livestock and Meat Board to set-up beef promotion. He was unsuccessful, even though Jay Taylor had been Chairman of the National Livestock and Meat Board from 1951 to 1953. the National Livestock and Meat Board held to its multi-species approach of promoting all red meat. At this point, cattlemen decided to form The National Beef Council that was to be funded by a nationally legislated check-off but was never passed. Jay Taylor was so impressed with the newly formed National Beef Council that he brought R.C. Pollock, then general manager of the National Livestock and Meat Board, to the convention to talk about a beef promotion program. Cattlemen had suffered from the second worst drought in history and severely depressed cattle prices. Inspired by R.C. Pollock, they enthusiastically picked up the beef promotion program of the National livestock and Meat Board.

The National Livestock and Meat Board responded by appointing a Program and Policy Study Committee, headed by John Marble and directed by Harrel DeGraff of Cornell University. Cornell University has receeived large contributions from the large meat packing companies of Armour,Swift,Cudahy and Wilson for many years. The committee recommended that the National Livestock and Meat Board be divided into a Beef Committee,a Lamb Committee,and a Pork Committee. This recommendation opened the door for a merger of the Beef Committee of the National Livestock and Meat Board and the National Beef Council.

In 1963, the National Beef Council and the National Livestock and Meat Board formed the National Beef Industry Council. The National Beef Industry Council was funded by voluntary check-off funds at that time; then voluntary funds went to an automatic deduction from the sales of cattle collected by auction yards and commission firms at the terminal markets. If you did not want to give a contribution you could make a written request and your deduction would be returned to you.

The National Livestock and Meat Board, which is packer owned and controlled, collected funds in the amount one cent per head on all livestock sold at the large terminal markets. This money was used for the promotion of meat. The one cent per head rate continued from 1922 until 1953. In 1953, it was increased to two cents per head, and in 1961, it was increased to three cents per head. That worked very well for the big packers. Then, with the reduction of livestock being shipped to the large terminal markets in the late 1960's, there was also a reduction of money collected for the big packers. So they had to devise a new way to collect large amounts of advertising and research funds.

By 1977, the packers had developed a strong working relationship with the American National Cattlemen's Association, which had evolved from the American National Livestock Association in 1951. In 1977, the American National Cattlemen's Association became the National Cattlemen's Association. At that time, the National Cattlemen's Association was financed by its membership dues and by collecting funds from cattle producers on a voluntary check-off for the promotion of beef. Not until the packers had this strong working relationship with the National Cattlemen's Association did the check-off-dollars become mandatory, by legislation in the 1985 Farm Bill, when Joann Smith was president. Then in 1995, the packers took over the National Cattlemen's Association, with the merger of the National Cattlemen's Association and the National Livestock and Meat Board, which became the National Cattlemens Beef Association (NCBA).

Joann Smith, was the first women president of the National Cattlemen's Association in 1985. She then led a successful campaign and was the first Chairman of the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (the one who collects the check-off-dollars) Joann Smith then went on to become a board member of IBP.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

EJ

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Clarencen said:
I am glad to see that you are still optimistic. I hope the people out there will listen. I am not sure that they will. The past 40 years the vegetarians, food and diet promotion people, our government, and the USDA have bad mouthed beef so badly without basing anything on facts.

So many of the industries that serve agriculture are more interested in selling huge tractors and tillage equipment, chemicals, and new and restricted varieties of seed, than they are of our health, or even of enviormental things.

Clarence, I believe one of the greatest failings of myself and others who have served on the checkoff and cattlemens' org boards is that so many producers are not well informed of what has been done with checkoff money, and funds from other sources to show consumers how good beef really is.

Part of that is because we want the most possible money spent on showing consumers, not telling producers what they should be getting from their representatives on those boards. Back when I was on the SD Beef Council, we rep's. did report back to our organizations, but we probably were not aggressive enough in seeking publicity to get the info out to producers not attending the meetings.

I'm sorry you are feeling pessimistic. Seeing the bad all the time is depressing, isn't it? How long ago have you heard USDA "bad mouth beef"? I think since USDA monitoring of the Beef Checkoff is required, the people involved have necessarily learned more facts about beef nutrients and accted accordingly.

What else could we expect from people who are either vegetarian, or are promoting odd diets or seeking headlines, though? Unfortunately, they seem so have bundles of money to spend to support their anti-meat agenda. That isn't going to change. However, our Beef Checkoff people have worked very hard, and with considerable success to get those stories either out of mainstream media, or to dilute their effectiveness with factual information stories placed in magazines, newspapers, etc.

The fact that you or I may not see such stories favorable to beef does not mean they are not out there. The consumers who purchase family proteins do not necessarily read the same things we read.

I hope you are not falling into the groups who believe all corporations are bad and greedy, out to lure us into spending money we don't need to spend to make us go broke so they can buy us out, in collusion with USDA to put farmers out of business. Believing that just seems silly, and I know you are not a silly person.

I believe it is the optimistic, excited people who can see opportunities in challenges facing them and the cattle business who are going to succeed and be the cattle industry in the future.

I hope they are taking advantage of information on the Beef Checkoff website to learn what their checkoff is doing, and be part of the action rather than part of the propaganda against it.

Now, I hear Stockgrowers claim that they don't get told what the SD Beef Council is doing, and that a new member of the CBB for SD is the first person who has visited their meetings and told them anything.

Sorry, but it is the responsibility of their three representatives on the SD Beef Councils, to report to them both what the state is doing, and to report what the national CBB reps, who DO report to the SD BIC meetings, have said.

Sure, it is nice to invite the CBB directors to your meetings, but, please offer them some expense money, as state travel probably isn't covered, and of course, their time is all volunteer.

Hearing it and knowing it are two different things MRJ. The fact is the 3 reps from the SDSGA do report back. And at the quarterly meeting in Mobridge I suggested the new appointment to the CBB be invited, being he was so close to Mobridge. We informed Allen different concerns of the SDSGA. Larry Nelson said, "He didn`t remember recently of any member of the CBB coming to a SDSGA meeting. And he really appreicated Allen and his wife takeing the time to some in." As you know they live within 15 miles of Mobridge. And it will be the intent of the SDSGA to have SD CBB members as often as we can schedule them.

As for the Federation, yes it is made up of reps from the various Beef Councils. And yes it is the checkoff side of NCBA.

Ernie J Mertz
SDSGA rep on the SDBIC
MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
fedup2 said:
MRJ writes: [Therefore, we probably would do our own thing, removing staff from the checkoff to work in a closed system or group of beef production and marketing alliances which would not have to observe the constraints of the current checkoff.
That would enable CATTLE PRODUCERS who are serious about selling BEEF to benefit from our efforts, and leave those who are not back in the commodity bin.

MRJ writes: [“My point is, NCBA is not going to disappear if the checkoff ends, or is "taken away from NCBA"........and will probably get even bigger and better.”]


If the NCBA could get bigger & better at representing the cattle producer by getting rid of the check off,(getting rid of it by letting someone else
take it over) why do they want it? If you are constrained by the checkoff and could do a better job by getting rid of that constraint, why wouldn't you? Aren’t cattle ‘producers’ supposed to be the people they are representing? Or have their priorities changed? Ya better straighten me out as I am confused again.

fed......Do you, or don't you understand that NCBA is TWO groups, separate financially, but working together under one roof and one name?

Untill I know the answer to that question, it is nearly impossible to answer your question, except to say I don't see the checkoff as a "constraint" as currently managed, but if it changes to the point of uselessness to cattle producers, or is eliminated, I doubt our members would sit and whine about the loss. We would do something about it.
MRJ

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
EJ said:
MRJ said:
Clarencen said:
I am glad to see that you are still optimistic. I hope the people out there will listen. I am not sure that they will. The past 40 years the vegetarians, food and diet promotion people, our government, and the USDA have bad mouthed beef so badly without basing anything on facts.

So many of the industries that serve agriculture are more interested in selling huge tractors and tillage equipment, chemicals, and new and restricted varieties of seed, than they are of our health, or even of enviormental things.

Clarence, I believe one of the greatest failings of myself and others who have served on the checkoff and cattlemens' org boards is that so many producers are not well informed of what has been done with checkoff money, and funds from other sources to show consumers how good beef really is.

Part of that is because we want the most possible money spent on showing consumers, not telling producers what they should be getting from their representatives on those boards. Back when I was on the SD Beef Council, we rep's. did report back to our organizations, but we probably were not aggressive enough in seeking publicity to get the info out to producers not attending the meetings.

I'm sorry you are feeling pessimistic. Seeing the bad all the time is depressing, isn't it? How long ago have you heard USDA "bad mouth beef"? I think since USDA monitoring of the Beef Checkoff is required, the people involved have necessarily learned more facts about beef nutrients and accted accordingly.

What else could we expect from people who are either vegetarian, or are promoting odd diets or seeking headlines, though? Unfortunately, they seem so have bundles of money to spend to support their anti-meat agenda. That isn't going to change. However, our Beef Checkoff people have worked very hard, and with considerable success to get those stories either out of mainstream media, or to dilute their effectiveness with factual information stories placed in magazines, newspapers, etc.

The fact that you or I may not see such stories favorable to beef does not mean they are not out there. The consumers who purchase family proteins do not necessarily read the same things we read.

I hope you are not falling into the groups who believe all corporations are bad and greedy, out to lure us into spending money we don't need to spend to make us go broke so they can buy us out, in collusion with USDA to put farmers out of business. Believing that just seems silly, and I know you are not a silly person.

I believe it is the optimistic, excited people who can see opportunities in challenges facing them and the cattle business who are going to succeed and be the cattle industry in the future.

I hope they are taking advantage of information on the Beef Checkoff website to learn what their checkoff is doing, and be part of the action rather than part of the propaganda against it.

Now, I hear Stockgrowers claim that they don't get told what the SD Beef Council is doing, and that a new member of the CBB for SD is the first person who has visited their meetings and told them anything.

Sorry, but it is the responsibility of their three representatives on the SD Beef Councils, to report to them both what the state is doing, and to report what the national CBB reps, who DO report to the SD BIC meetings, have said.

Sure, it is nice to invite the CBB directors to your meetings, but, please offer them some expense money, as state travel probably isn't covered, and of course, their time is all volunteer.

Hearing it and knowing it are two different things MRJ. The fact is the 3 reps from the SDSGA do report back. And at the quarterly meeting in Mobridge I suggested the new appointment to the CBB be invited, being he was so close to Mobridge. We informed Allen different concerns of the SDSGA. Larry Nelson said, "He didn`t remember recently of any member of the CBB coming to a SDSGA meeting. And he really appreicated Allen and his wife takeing the time to some in." As you know they live within 15 miles of Mobridge. And it will be the intent of the SDSGA to have SD CBB members as often as we can schedule them.

As for the Federation, yes it is made up of reps from the various Beef Councils. And yes it is the checkoff side of NCBA.

Ernie J Mertz
SDSGA rep on the SDBIC
MRJ

How right you are Ernie, "Hearing it and knowing it ARE two different things!"

We have been reading by SDSGA leaders in the media in western SD that they were missing out on information and opportunity to be heard by CBB because no one was coming to their meetings and reporting to them.

I don't believe that is listed as one of the duties of a CBB member, but most would have cheerfully done so, had they been invited. I believe Pat Blum, recently retired as a CBB member, was probably at many of your meetings with her husband who is a SDSGA member and I know she would have reported, had she been asked.

I also know that many CBB directors have attended SDBIC meetings, often at their own expense, and reported and asked for in-put there, and those reports should have been, and yes, maybe they WERE reported back to your membership........so how do you justify these complaints of "no reports and no imputs" ?

MRJ
 
Top