Questeion for SH

[mrj]

First, wasn't the USDA reasoning for not allowing Creekstone to test for BSE that USDA is responsible for such testing, therefore only USDA can do it? Wouldn't that be at least somewhat like a business with no medical expertise asking to be allowed to perform medical tests on people? BSE testing protocols were designed to have specific populations of cattle tested, with specific tests and methods to achieve the best possible coverage to find BSE if it existed in the US cattle herd. The system worked. The cattle were found. If USDA is the responsible party, they had darn well better be in charge of testing, IMO.

gunslinger, I have a bias toward NCBA because I have been involved in the organization for more than 40 years and know it well. I also know quite a lot about R-CALF and the history of that organization as well as having heard many statements against NCBA and the Beef Checkoff by some of the "top dogs" promoting R-CALF and some of their leaders. I'm not saying those claims are "official statements", because the leaders can maintain "innocence" when individuals do the dirty work. Sandhusker is biased for R-CALF and against NCBA, often attributing situations to NCBA that do not exist. He is in error when he states NCBA is trying to represent all segments of the beef/cattle industries. Fact is, NCBA represents CATTLE PRODUCERS by learning as much as possible about the other segments of the cattle/beef industry and working with them when it SERVES THE INTERESTS OF PRODUCERS TO DO SO.

*************************************

NCBA Mission Statement: "Working to increase profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers by enhancing the business climate and building consumer demand."

Our Governance: "Cattlemen Controlled, Industry Inclusive, Members have the final say."

Our Guiding Principles: "Free Enterprise, Limited Government, Consumer Focus."

Our Values: "*People are our greatest asset, *Trust among producers, members, partners and staff, *Integrity in operations, *Discipline in strategic implementation, *Fiscally responsible with resources."

Our Discipline:"*The opportunity must fit NCBA's mission. *NCBA must be best suited to execute on the opportunity. *The opportunity must fit within NCBA's resources."

Motto: Protecting our business, promoting our product, and preparing for our tomorrow.

Cattlemens Beef Board Mission Statement: "The Cattlemen's Beef Promotion & Research board is dedicated to improving producer profitability, expanding consumer demand for beef, and strengthening beef's position in the marketplace."

These points are from Policy books and the 2005 Summer Conference book.

****************************************

The cattleproducer members (a large majority of the membership, BTW) of NCBA believes we CAN work together with feeders, packers, and retailers to find and reward each segment appropriately for the value of our production. We do not have to continue the old ways of fighting and accusing one another of stealing "our" share. That scenario has long been promoted by many of the Auction Market leaders, but hasn't worked well for cattle producers. The Livestock Auction Marketing Assoc. was a driving force in the "birth" of R-CALF. I believe you can figure out the antagonism to packers among their leaders and members!

Sandhusker claims (erroneously) that NCBA leadership did not follow members direction on the 11 point directive re. opening the Canadian Border. I KNOW that there was a phone conference among the state affiliates and those affiliate representatives gave NCBA directors the go-ahead after a significant portion of the directives were achieved, contrary to what Sandhusker claims.

You might also want to consider that state affiliates have a strong voice and powers in NCBA. Also, the system of electing a new president each year keeps leadership flexible, with no entrenchment of holding office for years at a time. Volunteer (no pay, and only minimal expense recovery allowed) leaders keep fresh ideas and talent coming to the top in NCBA.

You may find it interesting to compare ALL the factors involved in numbers of cattle after the border opened and the prices we were receiving in the USA. I believe Agman has pointed out some of that in previous threads.

IMO, the current COOL law was a worthless piece of campaign flattery to cattle producers who had been convinced by R-CALF leaders that it would be a 'life saver' when the border opened again. In fact, it will have little effect with so little of the imported beef requiring labeling under the law. The fact that trade rules will not support labeling ONLY the imported beef is a real problem, glossed over or denied by supporters. Consumers will be very disappointed when they find that there is NO traceability of domestic beef allowed under the law because R-CALF leaders wanted only the packers to be held liable for traceback, and for producers not to be burdened with it. That might be fine in "blame-the-other-guy theory", but if we need to stop an outbreak of disease, cattle must be fully traceable, IMO. Yes, there are already some consumer driven privately labeled beef products, which shows that is the better system. Consumers can see a value in knowing who producers the beef they buy, but that is NOT universally mandated under COOL.

Re. Sandhuskers' claim that R-CALF "won" all those cases.......it is the "but...." that tells the final story........they DID NOT WIN the final victory! Sounds like a little kid saying "I woulda won, BUT...." and comes up with whatever creative excuse comes to his mind!

"Yes, R-CALF has aligned with consumer groups. Who else better than your customers should you cozy up to?" Sandhusker asks. I would ask who WORSE than Consumer Federation of America could a beef organization "cozy up to?" Carol Tucker Forman of CFA has long been a champion of substituting nearly anything for beef in school lunches, for one good reason to avoid that outfit! Who knows how many consumers they have as members? Creativity abounds in making such counts! Better to work with groups of REAL consumers as does NCBA Federation division to ask them what they want and to show them the facts about beef as garnered through science backed research. Better to develop educational materials and websites for them to use to learn more about all aspects of beef from safety to recipes to nutrition to new recipes! Better to work extensively and intensively with the health professionals. All of which you can check up on at www.beef.org, whether you are a member or not of ANY organization.

BTW, I care little which organization you join, however I would be very happy to have you join NCBA if you should decide that the organization will be of benefit to you and your ranching business. I only hope you will really do your own research and see who is doing what. Don't forget that NCBA has two divisions.......one is YOURS if you are a cattle producer paying the beef checkoff and you are very welcome to ask questions and give suggestions at www.beefboard.org. The other is the Policy/dues payer member organization which fights ALL the battles the cattle producer members think we need to fight in Washington, DC......be it water way fencing, taxation, environmental extremism, water rights for agriculture, Ag Research funding, labor issues, Farm Program issues, Animal health/disease issues, Antibiotic use, Property Rights, Administrative and Regulatory issues.........and, believe me, this is only a small part of what I was reading from the Beef USA policy book!

I hope that you can attend some meetings of state affiliates of NCBA in your local and state areas. Mainly because you will benefit from the producer workshops/speakers/exchange of ideas with other producers at those meetings. You may decide that it is worthwhile to be a member. And, no matter your experience level, the other members will benefit from their idea exchanges with you, too. We can all learn from one another. Production agriculture in these times requires study and interaction with other successful (and not-so-successful!) operators to maximize your own potential for success, IMO. Change is inevitable, and we need all the information we can get in order to maximize our benefit and minimize the down-side of it, whether we really embrace it or not. Good ag bankers are encouraging participation in professional organizations for their customers, too.

BTW, the cattle producers who got the Beef Checkoff passed put a mechanism for eliminating it in the law. Periodic (annual or semi-annual, I believe) polls of ranchers are required and conducted by independent and unbiased experts in that field to assess the level of support for it. Support has NEVER fallen below 60+%. If so few as 10% of cattle producers are unhappy enough to sign petitions calling for recall of the checkoff, it WILL be brought to a vote.

Happy searching! And best wishes on a successful career in agriculture!

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "First, wasn't the USDA reasoning for not allowing Creekstone to test for BSE that USDA is responsible for such testing, therefore only USDA can do it?"

They said testing the age of cattle Creekstone wanted to wasn't based on sound science. You can find that press release very easily.

MRJ, "Wouldn't that be at least somewhat like a business with no medical expertise asking to be allowed to perform medical tests on people?"

Creekstone's tested beef was destined for Japan. When did the Japanese Government ask the USDA for help or give them any authority to act in their behalf?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker- I wasn't clear in my above post. When I said "lets play hardball", I meant it towards dealing with the Japs. I think they should fallow the rules set up for bse that were earlier agreed to.

I still think that the US as a minimal risk country, we need not test cattle destined to Japan just to satisfy their demand. Why bear another cost when there is little to no risk. I just don't like the precidence(sp) it sets. That's my point all along, and all I'm saying about it.

 

[Anonymous]

Gunslinger,

Let me show you how easy it is to rebutt one of R-CALF's most prominent supporters:

BTW, when you ask an R-CALFer why they support R-CALF you will get all sorts of opinions. When you ask for the facts that support those opinions, you will get blank stares or more opinions.

Sandman: "Canadian cattle; When pointing out the R-CALF was wrong on the flood of Candain cattle coming down, SH conveniently omits the fact that the USDA placed a number of new requirements on them to where the combonation of better prices and more hoops to jump thru simply isn't worth it for Canadians to bother with. Those restrictions were not in place when the comment was made. Also, the border isn't completely open - animals over 30 months are not allowed period."

Gunslinger,

Sandman creates an "ILLUSION" again that we are not comparing apples to apples so that means you are left wondering who's telling you the truth here.

Here's what you need to do to sort it out, go to USDA or Cattle Fax and get the actual import data to make a comparable analysis of PRE-BSE imports of Canadian live cattle and PRE-BSE imports of Canadian beef. Remember that it doesn't matter whether Canada imports are in the form or live cattle or beef, it all adds to our domestic beef consumption as a percentage of the total.

As a rule of thumb, each 1% change in production affects price about 1.5%.

It's imperative that you do this research yourself so you can make an informed decision based on the data itself. Not on anything I say or Sandman says. I'm confident you will see the truth for yourself.

Also, see for yourself how much Canadian cows over 30 months of age contribute to total Canadian imports.

Please report back your findings to us. Don't rely on us, do your own research. You can get that data from USDA. The U.S. Dept. of Commerce - Bureau of Census tracks all imports and exports and all 4 categories including live cattle, beef, beef variety meats, and hides. Remember, we don't just sell the beef, we sell the tongues, the hides, the hooves, the bones, the ofal, the tails, etc. etc. You have to look at the whole picture.

Sandman: "R-CALF does NOT believe large packers are an enemy of the industry. SH has read comments from R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard on packers and he knows this. Yet, he wails about lies and deception.... R-CALF knows that the packers are out to maximize profits, as is any business. Like any manufacturer, they seek to lower their cost of raw materials - cattle. They lobby the government directly and thru their trade orginazation, the American Meat Institure (AMI), and they use alternative sources for cattle and beef when they can. However, their goals of cheap cattle clash with the goals of US producers, which is high priced cattle. R-CALF seeks to balance out their pull in Washington with the voice of cattlemen."

You should attend a blamer's convention and an NCBA convention and see for yourself who thinks the packers are making huge profits off the backs of producers and who thinks there is competition in the industry between the major packers that won't allow these "CLAIMED" huge profits.

R-CALF supported Pickett in Pickett vs. IBP. Pickett lost. The plaintiffs convinced the jury that dropping your price as your needs are met is market manipulation. The jury and the plaintiff's key witness awarded damages in excess of ibp's total profits for this time period. Remember that the only damages that could occur in this case regarded the plaintiff's claim that they should have received more for their cattle. ibp's total per head profits for this period of "SUPPOSED" market manipulation was $26 per head. Again, the damages awarded by the plaintiff's key witness and the jury far exceeded ibp's total profits. The judge threw the jury's verdict out siting that there was no violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act as the plaintiff's had alleged and the 11th circuit court of appeals upheld the judges decision. The plaintiff's key witness Dr. Taylor admitted under oath that he had never tested his theories which is a requirement of law. Pickett lost because they didn't have a case. Those who argue in contrast to that will not provide the evidence to back that position because it doesn't exist.

Of course packers want to maximize their profits. Of course they want to reduce their input costs. Just like any successful business does. The problem with any single company being able to do that is that they have to get these cattle bought against the competition who also needs those cattle. Contrary to popular packer blaming opinion, there is fierce competition between packers in the United States for those cattle.

The large efficient packing companies that we have in place today replaced the less efficient packing companies before them. Who would you rather have bidding on your cattle gunslinger, 5 large efficient packing companies that can kill your cattle on a $10 per head profit margin or a smaller less efficient packing company that needs a $40 - $50 per head margin to keep their doors open? It's simple economies of scale here. The smaller less efficient packers have been replaced.

Remember all the cussing about GM and all the market share they had? Look what's happening now. They are closing up plants due to their fierce competition. That's the business climate they live in and the bigger you are, the harder you have to compete.

The large packing companies do not use alternative sources (pork and poultry) when they can. Tyson wants each segment to be profitable and Tyson's investors expect just that. That statement is so typical of the conspiring minds of these packer blamers. They actually believe that Tyson would sacrifice the profitability of their beef sector at the expense of poultry and pork. Gunslinger, ask yourself how long you could stay in business doing that against Excel, Swift, USPB, and Smithfield. It's totally ridiculous.

Sandman: "SH claims he and the NCBA want less government intervention, yet they both supported the USDA in denying small domestic packers the ability to BSE test for international markets - which R-CALF supported. R-CALF sees that as needless and counter productive government intervention."

Specifically Gunslinger, Sandman is referring to Creekstone Farms that wanted to BSE test cattle under 24 months of age for the Japanese market. First off, the tests that Creekstone wanted to use would not even reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age. They were trying to sell an "ILLUSION" of safety. Creekstone's top man even stated that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE".

Secondly, there was never any proof that Japan would have even allowed this testing in the first place. It was just talk.

You have to make up your own mind on that. Should USDA allow private companies to BSE test when those tests wont reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months even if those BSE prions were there? I don't think they should and Sandman thinks $$$$$ is more important than food safety.

This parallels with allowing private companies to test drugs without FDA approval. There is a place for government when it comes to food safety issues and enforcing existing laws. The philisophical differences here involve additional government regulations that have no justification.

Sandman: "The current version of M-COOL is not exactly what R-CALF wanted, but they settled as it was a start. The organizations that SH supports were the ones largely responsible for the flaws. Yet, the GAO said it was a good law as written. Gunslinger, most developed countries in this world have COOL - and it is working. We are told it is too expensive, consumers don't want it, can't implement it, excuses ad naseum.... but we have dozens of examples of it working already."

Hahaha! Sorry Gunslinger but that was funny. At the "M"COOL listening sessions sponsored by USDA held around the nation, Leo McDonnell, president of R-CALF, stated that "M"COOL, as written, was a good law" and admitted that he helped to write it. Now they are trying to distance themselves from their own stupidity.

During this process, R-CALF quickly learned that it was not feasible to label every hamburger, every pizza, every Taco, and every hot dog sold in the U.S. Remember, consumers were never asking for this. During this process, R-CALF became educated to all the places beef products end up and how unfeasible it was for all these forms of beef sales to have to label their product. The R-CALF representatives working on this understood why food service was exempted from this law yet they don't want to admit how irrelevant it was to end up labeling 95% of our U.S. beef consumption as U.S. beef simply to segregate the 5% that is imported.

Make no mistake, it was R-CALF that wrote this law and it was R-CALF that prohibited "M"ID from "M"COOL which is the only thing that would prove that which they demanded. They demanded that for any product to receive the "U.S. beef" designation, it had to be born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S. Come on Gunslinger, you're smart enough to realize that if you are going to prove where beef was born, you have to prove where the cattle were born. R-CALF's oversimplistic solution is to just mark the imports but that tells you nothing once the hide comes off at the packing plant. The origination of the beef that leaves the plant has to match the cattle that entered the plant. Don't take my word for this, ask any USDA representative involved in this law how you can trace the beef without tracing all the cattle. After all, R-CALF is not responsible for enforcing this law, USDA is. Ask them and report back what you find.

Ironically, those who insisted on "U.S. Beef" needing to be born, raised, and processed in the U.S., did not want a traceback system to prove just that because they didn't want to be burdened with it. R-CALF recently voted against a traceback system which is the only thing that would have given "M"COOL any food safety value. R-CALF was never concerned about food safety, they were concerned about isolating imported beef. Now we are left with this seriously flawed law that they don't want to take credit for because doing so would expose their ignorance.

You'll get this figured out if you don't allow anyone to influence you other than your own research and that includes me. Take what I say with a grain of salt and conduct your own research and see for yourself whether I'm right or not.

Once again, if consumers want Country of Origin Labeling, the free enterprise system is already providing source verified branded beef products that track the beef right to the farm. The ultimate in food safety.

Sandman: "US producers have invested millions into producing quality cattle. In additionl, we chuck $1 into the pot everytime we sell one to promote our cattle and then we can't even seperate our beef from any body else's. R-CALF recognizes that US producers are not getting the highest return on their investments. Gunslinger, how many other businesses out there are content with investing to provide the highest quality product out there, and then not being able to seperate it? Why do we bother?"

That was an impressive sound byte wasn't it Gunslinger? The fact is, when you differentiate your product, you have to differentiate your product from something. When you segregate 95% from 5%, this rhetoric becomes meaningless. All you are doing is segregating 5% as a novelty item at the expense of labeling all beef WHEN CONSUMERS ARE NOT EVEN ASKING FOR IT?

Like I said, "SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE"!

What's important is that we promote beef consumption because 95% of the beef at the retail level would be U.S. beef anyway.

Look at the sheep industry now. They are long past this. They used to have the same divisions with those who wanted to promote lamb and those who wanted to blame imports. Now most of the blamers have gone out of business and the successful producers that survived realize that beef, pork, and chicken are their competition, not imported lamb.

Sandman: "R-CALF also has the vision to look into the future and recognize that a flood of imported beef is coming our way. Trade barriers are being removed and large US packers are positioning themselves in foreign countries so they can whisk that beef thru their channels to US consumers. COOL gives US producers a fighting chance. Gunslinger, Brazil alone has close to 3 times the number of cattle we do. When they have full access to our markets, what do you forsee happening if the status quo remains? Do you see anything positive for producers?"

Sandman doesn't know what the future holds. Notice the word "FLOOD"? Hahaha! Need I say more?

Gunslinger, Brazil's cattle are grass fed, not grain fed so they would have to change their feeding to compete with our beef from a quality standpoint. Secondly, R-CALF is not the only organization keeping a close watch out for Brazil although that is what they would like to believe since they lost their dumping case against Canada. Currently, Brazilian imports of live cattle are banned due to hoof and mouth. NCBA will continue to monitor this issue based on facts. R-CALF will continue to monitor this issue based on emotion. With both organizations sharing the same concern about Brazilian imports, I think it's safe to say that this industry will be represented if and when that time comes. Remember, consumers outvote producers by 98% to 2% so we have our work cut out for us in light of cheap food policies.

Sandman thinks "M"COOL would help alleviate this situation. Gunslinger, your smart enough to know that consumers base most of their shopping decisions on price. You are smart enough to see the success of Walmart selling foreign products. I don't need to explain that any further.

Sandman: "R-CALF does NOT want more government per se. They simply want the government to do it's job in keeping markets fair and functioning as they were intended."

That is not true Gunslinger!

R-CALF supports "M"COOL which is more government.

R-CALF supported "Mandatory" price reporting which is more government.

R-CALF wants USDA to run a "Mandatory" ID program rather than the free enterprise system which is more government.

R-CALF supports the Captive Supply Reform Act based on their packer conspiracy theories of market manipulation which is more government.


Talk is cheap Gunslinger, watch R-CALF's actions. Trust me Gunslinger, R-CALF wants more government intervention into this industry.

Sandman: "If R-CALF is simply playing politics with Canadian BSE as SH would tell you, why is Canadian beef not allowed in most of the world? R-CALF asks why we are taking product most other countries won't? Does it make sense to have lower import standards than third-world countries such as Egypt? Why does the Canadian government maintain many of the same policies against other countrys that R-CALF's opponents chastise them for? Look at the bigger picture, gunslinger."

That's right Gunslinger, look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that Canada has taken the same BSE precautionary measures that the United States has. Actually, they have taken it further than we have by having a traceback system, by banning chicken litter from feed, and by agressively testing the highest risk categories of cattle knowing that R-CALF would use the results of Canada finding more BSE positives against them.

The bigger picture is that either U.S. beef and Canadian beef, due to the precautionary measures that each country has taken, is safe or it's not.

The bigger picture is knowing that we cannot treat Canada any different than we want Japan and South Korea to treat the U.S.

The bigger picture is that any trade efforts of live cattle and beef must consider the precautinary measures that have been taken of banning ruminant feeds, banning the slaughter of downer cows, banning imports of cattle over 30 months of age which is still in place regarding Canada, increased BSE surveilance, and SRM removal. Those precautionary measures are in place so naturally outdated policies regarding BSE need to be updated to consider the measures that each country has taken.

If not, you end up like R-CALF trying to pretend that Canadian beef is less safe than U.S. beef under the same BSE precautionary measures. That's why R-CALF's injuction against USDA was overruled and upheld by the 9th circuit court of appeals. Facts matter in court.

Look no further than the fact that R-CALF's first battle was filing a dumping case against Canada, WHICH THEY LOST, to know that this is all about stopping Canadian imports, not food safety. Look no further than the fact that they prohibited "M"ID from "M"COOL to see how far their food safety concerns go.

Sandman: "SH does not tell the whole truth on R-CALF's court record; They won the dumping case - just could not prove damages."

Herman Schumacher, R-CALF director, recently stated that R-CALF lost this case. Sandman is trying to create an "ILLUSION" again. They lost. Don't know who to believe? Do your own research and let us know what you find out.

Sandman: "R-CALF won the injunction but it was tossed by the 9th court. Gunslinger, examine the 9th's record and see what you think. R-CALF's core arguement was that the USDA was not doing their job - and the 9th came back and said judgment should be deferred to the USDA. Does that sound like the USDA is accountable or they just got an unlimited pass?"

Hahaha! Over 50 judges reviewed this case and they sided with USDA. USDA was and continues to do it's job. Why wouldn't they? They are accountable to the U.S. consumer, not just the producers or the packers.

Sandman: "I recommend you don't listen to SH or me - look at the case yourself."

I agree and look for the evidence to support R-CALF's claims. Best of luck!

Sandman: "Yes, R-CALF supported the Pickett plaintiffs. A jury of 12 mostly professional college educated jurors voted unamiously in their favor. Did SH mention that? I would ask that you read the first two pages of the Packers and Stockyards Act and then see if you agree with the judge who threw out the verdict."

Yes, Gunslinger knows that I mentioned that the plaintiffs convinced the jury that dropping your price to reflect your needs is market manipulation. The Judge knew better and so did the 11th circuit court of appeals that upheld the judge's decision.

Sandman: "R-CALF only position on the checkoff is that it should be voted on periodically."

Leo McDonnell, R-CALF president, recently stated that the beef checkoff is supporting anti producer organizations which is a bold faced lie. That should pretty much tell you what R-CALF's position is on the beef checkoff.

Sandman: "SH is wrong again when he states R-CALF is anti trade. R-CALF simply wants FAIR trade. They point out that we keep making trade agreements with beef exporting countries - which jeapordizes US producers. R-CALF would like efforts directed at trade agreements with beef importing countries - which helps US producers."

R-CALF's CEO Bill Bullard stated, "Because you don't produce enough beef to satisfy our own domestic market, you don't need an export market to distribute your production".

Bill Bullard, when asked what this industry would be like without trade stated, "We would be in a very favorable position since we don't produce enough beef to satisfy our own domestic markets now".

Will the real R-CALF position on trade please step forward?

NCBA has been monitoring trade issues much longer than R-CALF and their decisions are based on facts, not emotional rheotric.

Recently, NCBA supported the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and R-CALF did not. We were paying tarriffs as high as 40% to Central American countries while they were exporting to the U.S. virtually duty free. NCBA wanted to level the playing field. R-CALF saw it as an opportunity for more imports. If you research the facts on this issue, you will see that these countries could already export to the U.S. and CAFTA changed nothing about that. All it did was drop our tarriffs so we were competing on a level playing field. These Central American countries were not meeting their quota now.

R-CALF is also against NAFTA but if you look at world beef and live cattle trade prior to BSE and include the hide and Beef Variety meat categories that R-CALF conveniently leaves out, you will see that we had an average $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade surplus in this industry for 7years prior to BSE. Yeh, we import more dollars of beef and live cattle from Canada than we export but we export more dollars of beef and live cattle to Mexico than we import. Pre-BSE, we also exported a tremendous amount amount of beef to Japan and South Korea.

If we had normalized (pre-BSE) trade now, our cattle prices would be higher than they are now.

Sandman: "Yes, R-CALF has aligned with consumer groups. Who else better than your customers should you cozy up to?"

They aligned themselves with CERTAIN consumer groups who happend to share their anti USDA position at the time and some of who had previously taken very anti-beef positions against our industry. One of these groups wanted to remove beef from the popular food pyramid of a well balanced diet in favor of a vegetarian diet. Now they justify this action with the "who better than your customers" rhetoric.

Sandman: "My view on the NCBA is that, from the gate, they can not do what they say they are doing - representing all segments of the beef/cattle industries. You join trade organization to give you a larger voice in promoting your agendas. A producer's agenda is low beef prices so consumers will buy it and high calf prices as that is what they are selling. Feeders want low calf prices and high fat prices. Packers want low fat prices and high boxed beef , retailers want low box beef and high retail prices - and the circle is complete. Notice how many different and opposite agendas there are? They've got to pick one."

Gunslinger, it is an absolute fact that not one more dime will enter this industry unless it comes from the consumer. With that in mind, nobody has more incentive to do all we can to increase beef's market share than the producer does. Issues that affect the packing industry such as ecoli, end up affecting the producers most because the rest of the industry operates on a margin. It is absolutely in the best interests of this industry to work together on food safety issues.

NCBA is made up of 2/3 ranchers and 1/3 feeders. The goals of the feeding industry and the producers are basically the same, profitability.

R-CALF claims NCBA does not represent the producer. Ask them for specifics to back that claim and they look at you like you have two heads. Talk is so cheap! Most repeat what they hear. Some can't even define "captive supplies" yet they use the word freely. Does that tell you anything?

NCBA's focus is on the consumer which is exactly where it should be. Meanwhile, R-CALF's staunchest supporters and one of their directors is trying to save the beef industry from their own self help program with their lawsuit against the constitutionality of the beef checkoff WHICH THEY LOST.

Read Dennis McDonald's recent position on the beef checkoff. Dennis McDonald is R-CALF's trade representative. Heck, even Sandman couldn't support his position. These guys are loose cannons.

The agendas of the packing industry, retail beef industry, feeding industry, and producer industry are all the same, profitability. The only way for them to be profitable is to work together to obtain more consumer dollars rather than all these baseless conspiracy theories of market manipulation that serve nobody.

Sandman: "R-CALF only claims to represent one segment - the producer. You'll notice all their actions are consistant with putting more money in US producer's pockets."

Look at the inconsistencies in R-CALF's arguments. One one hand they claim that beef promotion only serves the packers and retailers. On the other hand, they support "M"COOL???

How does adding "M"COOL costs add to the producers pockets when you are segregating 5% of the beef at the retail beef counter as a novelty item from 95%???

How does losing court cases help producers?

How does prohibiting certain pricing mechanisms from the feeding sector help producers?

How did Mandatory Price Reporting help producers when it doesn't report value?

Talk is cheap Gunslinger!

Sandman: "Take a look at all of NCBA's stands and see if you can reach the same conclusion."

I agree! See where NCBA's focus is on the consumer and expanding export markets rather than chasing packer blaming conspiracy theories and overexaggerating the impact of imports.

You are absolutely right about R-CALF being the popular thing to do right now. What you need to decide is whether the facts support their actions or whether it's the blind leading the blind.

Be sure to report back on your findings Gunslinger. I am confident where the facts will lead you if you are truly objective. If you are on the side of facts and truth, you are on the winning team.

I'd like to point out to you Sandman's inability to contradict anything I have stated, WITH FACTS TO THE CONTRARY. Anyone can present an opposing opinion but only a few can back that opinion with supporting facts.

Best of luck to you gunslinger.

BTW, what kind of guns do you sling?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

First, wasn't the USDA reasoning for not allowing Creekstone to test for BSE that USDA is responsible for such testing, therefore only USDA can do it? Wouldn't that be at least somewhat like a business with no medical expertise asking to be allowed to perform medical tests on people? BSE testing protocols were designed to have specific populations of cattle tested, with specific tests and methods to achieve the best possible coverage to find BSE if it existed in the US cattle herd. The system worked. The cattle were found. If USDA is the responsible party, they had darn well better be in charge of testing, IMO.

gunslinger, I have a bias toward NCBA because I have been involved in the organization for more than 40 years and know it well. I also know quite a lot about R-CALF and the history of that organization as well as having heard many statements against NCBA and the Beef Checkoff by some of the "top dogs" promoting R-CALF and some of their leaders. I'm not saying those claims are "official statements", because the leaders can maintain "innocence" when individuals do the dirty work. Sandhusker is biased for R-CALF and against NCBA, often attributing situations to NCBA that do not exist. He is in error when he states NCBA is trying to represent all segments of the beef/cattle industries. Fact is, NCBA represents CATTLE PRODUCERS by learning as much as possible about the other segments of the cattle/beef industry and working with them when it SERVES THE INTERESTS OF PRODUCERS TO DO SO.

*************************************

NCBA Mission Statement: "Working to increase profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers by enhancing the business climate and building consumer demand."

Our Governance: "Cattlemen Controlled, Industry Inclusive, Members have the final say."

Our Guiding Principles: "Free Enterprise, Limited Government, Consumer Focus."

Our Values: "*People are our greatest asset, *Trust among producers, members, partners and staff, *Integrity in operations, *Discipline in strategic implementation, *Fiscally responsible with resources."

Our Discipline:"*The opportunity must fit NCBA's mission. *NCBA must be best suited to execute on the opportunity. *The opportunity must fit within NCBA's resources."

Motto: Protecting our business, promoting our product, and preparing for our tomorrow.

Cattlemens Beef Board Mission Statement: "The Cattlemen's Beef Promotion & Research board is dedicated to improving producer profitability, expanding consumer demand for beef, and strengthening beef's position in the marketplace."

These points are from Policy books and the 2005 Summer Conference book.

****************************************

The cattleproducer members (a large majority of the membership, BTW) of NCBA believes we CAN work together with feeders, packers, and retailers to find and reward each segment appropriately for the value of our production. We do not have to continue the old ways of fighting and accusing one another of stealing "our" share. That scenario has long been promoted by many of the Auction Market leaders, but hasn't worked well for cattle producers. The Livestock Auction Marketing Assoc. was a driving force in the "birth" of R-CALF. I believe you can figure out the antagonism to packers among their leaders and members!

Sandhusker claims (erroneously) that NCBA leadership did not follow members direction on the 11 point directive re. opening the Canadian Border. I KNOW that there was a phone conference among the state affiliates and those affiliate representatives gave NCBA directors the go-ahead after a significant portion of the directives were achieved, contrary to what Sandhusker claims.

You might also want to consider that state affiliates have a strong voice and powers in NCBA. Also, the system of electing a new president each year keeps leadership flexible, with no entrenchment of holding office for years at a time. Volunteer (no pay, and only minimal expense recovery allowed) leaders keep fresh ideas and talent coming to the top in NCBA.

You may find it interesting to compare ALL the factors involved in numbers of cattle after the border opened and the prices we were receiving in the USA. I believe Agman has pointed out some of that in previous threads.

IMO, the current COOL law was a worthless piece of campaign flattery to cattle producers who had been convinced by R-CALF leaders that it would be a 'life saver' when the border opened again. In fact, it will have little effect with so little of the imported beef requiring labeling under the law. The fact that trade rules will not support labeling ONLY the imported beef is a real problem, glossed over or denied by supporters. Consumers will be very disappointed when they find that there is NO traceability of domestic beef allowed under the law because R-CALF leaders wanted only the packers to be held liable for traceback, and for producers not to be burdened with it. That might be fine in "blame-the-other-guy theory", but if we need to stop an outbreak of disease, cattle must be fully traceable, IMO. Yes, there are already some consumer driven privately labeled beef products, which shows that is the better system. Consumers can see a value in knowing who producers the beef they buy, but that is NOT universally mandated under COOL.

Re. Sandhuskers' claim that R-CALF "won" all those cases.......it is the "but...." that tells the final story........they DID NOT WIN the final victory! Sounds like a little kid saying "I woulda won, BUT...." and comes up with whatever creative excuse comes to his mind!

"Yes, R-CALF has aligned with consumer groups. Who else better than your customers should you cozy up to?" Sandhusker asks. I would ask who WORSE than Consumer Federation of America could a beef organization "cozy up to?" Carol Tucker Forman of CFA has long been a champion of substituting nearly anything for beef in school lunches, for one good reason to avoid that outfit! Who knows how many consumers they have as members? Creativity abounds in making such counts! Better to work with groups of REAL consumers as does NCBA Federation division to ask them what they want and to show them the facts about beef as garnered through science backed research. Better to develop educational materials and websites for them to use to learn more about all aspects of beef from safety to recipes to nutrition to new recipes! Better to work extensively and intensively with the health professionals. All of which you can check up on at www.beef.org, whether you are a member or not of ANY organization.

BTW, I care little which organization you join, however I would be very happy to have you join NCBA if you should decide that the organization will be of benefit to you and your ranching business. I only hope you will really do your own research and see who is doing what. Don't forget that NCBA has two divisions.......one is YOURS if you are a cattle producer paying the beef checkoff and you are very welcome to ask questions and give suggestions at www.beefboard.org. The other is the Policy/dues payer member organization which fights ALL the battles the cattle producer members think we need to fight in Washington, DC......be it water way fencing, taxation, environmental extremism, water rights for agriculture, Ag Research funding, labor issues, Farm Program issues, Animal health/disease issues, Antibiotic use, Property Rights, Administrative and Regulatory issues.........and, believe me, this is only a small part of what I was reading from the Beef USA policy book!

I hope that you can attend some meetings of state affiliates of NCBA in your local and state areas. Mainly because you will benefit from the producer workshops/speakers/exchange of ideas with other producers at those meetings. You may decide that it is worthwhile to be a member. And, no matter your experience level, the other members will benefit from their idea exchanges with you, too. We can all learn from one another. Production agriculture in these times requires study and interaction with other successful (and not-so-successful!) operators to maximize your own potential for success, IMO. Change is inevitable, and we need all the information we can get in order to maximize our benefit and minimize the down-side of it, whether we really embrace it or not. Good ag bankers are encouraging participation in professional organizations for their customers, too.

BTW, the cattle producers who got the Beef Checkoff passed put a mechanism for eliminating it in the law. Periodic (annual or semi-annual, I believe) polls of ranchers are required and conducted by independent and unbiased experts in that field to assess the level of support for it. Support has NEVER fallen below 60+%. If so few as 10% of cattle producers are unhappy enough to sign petitions calling for recall of the checkoff, it WILL be brought to a vote.

Happy searching! And best wishes on a successful career in agriculture!

MRJ

MRJ, It was a job for the USDA and the Japanese are like a lot of us, we don't believe the USDA is doing their job well. In light of that, we have the Creekstone deal. Phillis Fong was publically talked down on by the Secretary of Agriculture for doing her job on the BSE issue. What we have is a government that is willing to control the truth for their and their friend's benefit.

These just happen to be large campaign contributors. If the USDA is standing in the way of allowing legitimate businesses conduct tests that countries that import want (I am sure the Japanese would make sure the tests were the ones they wanted and that they thought were good tests), why is the USDA standing in the way? It is time for the USDA to start acting like a government agency instead of an arm of giant agribusiness (Tyson). It is causing deadweight losses to our economy and hurting producers and exports. It is likely that we will find more BSE in the U.S. if more testing was done, but if the public feels that we are doing everything we can and not hiding the truth, then they will support the beef industry by not going crazy. Coverups make a scandal and fraud, not finding out the truth about an issue through coverup will only hurt the industry.

 

[Anonymous]

Gunslinger,

I would ask that you read Econ.'s comments with extreme caution. He has lots of opinions but no facts to support them. If you question something he's stated, ask for proof and you'll see what I mean. He's the biggest phony on this site, bar none. I'm confident you'll figure that out too as so many others have.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Gunslinger,

I would ask that you read Econ.'s comments with extreme caution. He has lots of opinions but no facts to support them. If you question something he's stated, ask for proof and you'll see what I mean. He's the biggest phony on this site, bar none. I'm confident you'll figure that out too as so many others have.



~SH~

I would ask that you read SH's comments with extreme caution. He has lots of opinions but no facts to support them. If you question something he's stated, ask for proof and you'll see what I mean. He's the biggest phony on this site, bar none. I'm confident you'll figure that out too as so many others have.

SH, you are such a hypocrite.

 

[Sandhusker]

Gunslinger, from time to time we have little polls here where a question is posed, people vote, and we get a feel for how something is received on this board. Guess who was voted as "no credibility"? It was the same guy who the majority voted lied on another subject. Read a few posts in the archives and you'll see why.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, you are such a hypocrite."

Prove it!

Talk is cheap!



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Gunslinger, from time to time we have little polls here where a question is posed, people vote, and we get a feel for how something is received on this board. Guess who was voted as "no credibility"? It was the same guy who the majority voted lied on another subject. Read a few posts in the archives and you'll see why."

Hahaha!

Gunslinger, I have absolutely no doubts that any young person in college is smart enough to see a phony discrediting tactic when they see one.

See how they gather their little support groups that agree with them as opposed to debating their points from a factual merit?

DENY, DISCREDIT, DECEIVE, DIVERT! That's the MO of those who cannot debate their position from a factual merit.

Now tell me Gunslinger, did Sandman bring the facts to contradict what I presented or did he resort to a discrediting tactic so common of the factually defenseless instead?

Pretty obvious isn't it?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: "Gunslinger, from time to time we have little polls here where a question is posed, people vote, and we get a feel for how something is received on this board. Guess who was voted as "no credibility"? It was the same guy who the majority voted lied on another subject. Read a few posts in the archives and you'll see why."

Hahaha!

Gunslinger, I have absolutely no doubts that any young person in college is smart enough to see a phony discrediting tactic when they see one.

See how they gather their little support groups that agree with them as opposed to debating their points from a factual merit?

DENY, DISCREDIT, DECEIVE, DIVERT! That's the MO of those who cannot debate their position from a factual merit.

Now tell me Gunslinger, did Sandman bring the facts to contradict what I presented or did he resort to a discrediting tactic so common of the factually defenseless instead?

Pretty obvious isn't it?


~SH~

What did I say that was incorrect, SH? Bring some contradicting facts of your own.

Strange how you say, "...any young person in college is smart enough..." when you have claimed the 12 college educated Pickett jurors weren't smart enough to render a verdict. :lol:

 

[Soapweed]

Gunslinger, what this board needs is an adult such as yourself to take care of recess duty. Monitor the children and make sure they don't hurt each other. So far it's just words being thrown back and forth, but soon they'll be throwing sticks and stones, and next thing you know there will be broken bones. Hopefully you will consider taking on this responsibility.
:? :???: :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "What did I say that was incorrect, SH? Bring some contradicting facts of your own."

I just got done correcting your misleading information in a point counter point format.

As far as your phony surveys on this site, that is just a means of gathering a support group of those who agree with your position. It says nothing of the factual merits that support either position.

Soapweed: "Gunslinger, what this board needs is an adult such as yourself to take care of recess duty. Monitor the children and make sure they don't hurt each other. So far it's just words being thrown back and forth, but soon they'll be throwing sticks and stones, and next thing you know there will be broken bones. Hopefully you will consider taking on this responsibility."

Looks like you already have.

I'll bet you look real cute on horseback with a black and white striped shirt and whistle tied around your neck. LOL!

What's your weather doing? Visibility?


~SH~

 

[Soapweed]

Sandman: "Gunslinger, what this board needs is an adult such as yourself to take care of recess duty. Monitor the children and make sure they don't hurt each other. So far it's just words being thrown back and forth, but soon they'll be throwing sticks and stones, and next thing you know there will be broken bones. Hopefully you will consider taking on this responsibility."

Looks like you already have.

I'll bet you look real cute on horseback with a black and white striped shirt and whistle tied around your neck. LOL!

What's your weather doing? Visibility?


~SH~

My name is not Sandman. Kind of reminds me of my mother talking to my sister one time. She said, "Well, surely you can do better than that." My offended sister disdainfully replied, "My name is not Shirley."

The wind is howling at about forty miles per hour. There is snow in the air and visibility is only about half a mile, but not much snow has accumulated as yet.

 

[Anonymous]

Soapweed: "My name is not Sandman."

Sorry Soap, didn't mean to insult you.

Thanks for the weather report. About the same here. Light snow and high winds. No school.


~SH~

 

[gunslinger]

Definately gotta do some research on my own.

 

[Anonymous]

Please report back your findings gunslinger.

Again, take everyone's opinion with a grain of salt and seek the truth on your own with no biases. You'll figure it out. I used to support the R-CULT mantra too until I started noticing that nothing they were saying was consistant with what was really happening in the real world.

You also need to talk to some packers of all sizes and retailers of all sizes and hear about that industry from those who are actually doing it.

If you are interested in "M"COOL and how it will affect this industry, I would ask you to review the "M"COOL listening sessions at USDA's site and read for yourself what the packing and retail industry had to say about "M"COOL and how it would affect them. The concerns are consistant with packers of all sizes.

Best of luck to you gunslinger!




~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH, If retailers can not tell where they are getting their meat from should we trust them for selling it to us? Remember, you didn't earn your badge.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, If retailers can not tell where they are getting their meat from should we trust them for selling it to us?"

Who said retailers can not tell where they are getting their meat from?


~SH~

 

[HAY MAKER]

Please report back your findings gunslinger.

Again, take everyone's opinion with a grain of salt and seek the truth on your own with no biases. You'll figure it out.

I used to support the R-CULT mantra too until I started noticing that nothing they were saying

was consistant with what was really happening in the real world.

You also need to talk to some packers of all sizes and retailers of all sizes and hear about that industry from those who are actually doing it.

If you are interested in "M"COOL and how it will affect this industry, I would ask you to review the "M"COOL listening sessions at USDA's site and read for yourself what the packing and retail industry had to say about "M"COOL and how it would affect them. The concerns are consistant with packers of all sizes.

Best of luck to you gunslinger!




~SH~

You have a short memory boy...............good luck