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

R-CALF's growing influence in the beef industry.

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Beef Checkoff Taskforce recommends doubling assessment
Friday, September 8, 2006, 3:59 PM

by Peter Shinn

Audio related to this story

Interview with Jim Hanna runs 8:20.

The Industry-Wide Beef Industry Checkoff Task Force wrapped up its work Thursday in Kansas City, Missouri with a recommendation to double the per-head assessment to $2.00 and to implement a system that would make a producer referendum on the checkoff simpler.

Nebraska cow-calf operator Jim Hanna represented R-CALF USA on the Checkoff Taskforce. He said R-CALF USA opposed increasing the checkoff assessment, and felt the Taskforce should have focused on other issues. "Of course, the idea of increasing the assessment was the main topic on most of the folks that were part of that task force, that was the thing that was the thing that was highest on their agenda," Hanna said. "We had a number of other items that we were more concerned about that we certainly wanted to see addressed before we took any position on increasing the assessment."

While R-CALF opposed doubling the beef checkoff assessment, Hanna said there was little disagreement about the Task Force recommendation to simplify the producer referendum process. The Task Force recommended the beef checkoff implement a similar referendum process to that currently employed by the soybean checkoff. If approved, the beef checkoff would be subject to a referendum every five years, but only if 10% of beef producers petitioned to hold such a referendum.

None of the Task Force recommendations will go into effect quickly. Hanna said the recommendations must be approved by Congress and then voted on by producers, a process he said could take years. "We felt that even at the most optimistic, 18 months, and I think that's probably wildly optimistic," Hanna said. "My personal opinion is we're looking at two to three years out before this would actually come to a producer vote, and maybe longer than that before it was actually enacted."

Hanna said even though R-CALF USA didn't get all it wanted from the Task Force, being included in the task force is a sign of R-CALF's growing influence in the beef industry. "We were recognized as an important part of the cattle business," he said. "R-CALF as an organization has grown and grown in importance, and they recognized that without our support, getting these changes made were going to be difficult," he added. "And we felt that part of it was pretty critical to our organization," Hanna concluded.
 

the chief

Well-known member
As well it should be considered a GROWING factor in the industry. Good story. Nice to see some sensible people working on the industry's needs and wants.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Strange what can get done when you work together and not just take people to court. That's how credible organizations work

Credible organizations do what it takes, even if that includes going to court.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Strange what can get done when you work together and not just take people to court. That's how credible organizations work

Credible organizations do what it takes, even if that includes going to court.

Declaring that you will never go to court is like having a gun and declaring that "I will never use it to defend myself."

Having the right and the possibility to go to court enhances the strength of the organization. Otherwise, we are a doormat for scofflaws. With the enhanced strength we can get away with going to court less often.

When should we go to court? When the other party is wrong and won't budge!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Most people don't go to court unless they have the facts to back their allegations. R-CALF would be the exception to that rule. Their lawyers certainly appreciate the business. Win or lose (mostly lose), they still get paid. Wonder what their next baseless allegation case will be? R-CALF suing the packers for encouraging feeders to feed cattle longer placing more tonnage on the market? That sounds like R-CALF logic.

"BWAME DA PACKAH"


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Nah, just a much needed break from your wild imagination and Conman's lies.

When are you going to write your book?

What I Want To Believe .......

or

What Facts Wont Support

by Sandhusker.


I see R-CALF finally admitted in their latest publication that pounds was more important to them than value when it comes to trade. Actual quote was, "R-CALF USDA approaches trade with a primary emphasis on volume, not value". In other words, imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand have as much impact on our markets as an equal tonnage of exported middle meats to Japan. Typical R-CULT "beef is beef" logic! No wonder so many people are so confused as to who to believe.

When did our industry become so plagued with a need to blame that this need to blame would become more important than what facts would support?

South Dakota Stockgrowers president Rick Fox recently stated that he believes that imports are having more of a negative impact on our markets than poultry and pork.

2004 - Canadian border closed to live cattle
2005 - Canadian border opened to live cattle
2005 cattle prices were higher than 2004!

Obvious to anyone is there is more factors playing on the market than Canadian imports yet R-CALF continues to "CREATE THE ILLUSION". If R-CALF is successful in stopping Canadian imports of live cattle, Canada would simply absorb that same portion of our Japanese export market. Zero gain! Meanwhile, poultry and pork continue to find ways to capture more of the consumer dollar while the LMA representatives pulling R-CALF's wagon are suing the beef checkoff.

What tangled webs we weave.

"Dont consumers have a right to know where their beef comes from?"
"Don't burden me with traceback"

Follow the yellow brick road.............


~SH~
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Volume of supply has more impact on the price of live cattle than value of the finished product. That's the point you proved with your '04 to '05 price comparison.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RM: "Volume of supply has more impact on the price of live cattle than value of the finished product. That's the point you proved with your '04 to '05 price comparison."

Absolutely ridiculous.

To R-CALF this and only look at supply totally disregards the price that supply is offered at. R-CALF's "supply and supply" theory.

The raise in prices between 2004 and 2005 was an increase in demand DESPITE AN INCREASE IN IMPORTS.

Supply and demand both have an impact on prices. To say one has more effect than the other, WITHOUT MEASURING THE IMPACT OF EACH, screams of economic ignorance of the beef industry.

An increase in POUNDS of lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand will certainly not negatively impact live cattle prices if the demand is there for blending this product with our surplus 50/50 trim due to the price this product is offered at.


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
The raise in prices between 2004 and 2005 was an increase in demand DESPITE AN INCREASE IN IMPORTS.

To say one has more effect than the other, WITHOUT MEASURING THE IMPACT OF EACH, screams of economic ignorance of the beef industry.

~SH~

Classic self contradiction.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
SH said:
An increase in POUNDS of lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand will certainly not negatively impact live cattle prices if the demand is there for blending this product with our surplus 50/50 trim due to the price this product is offered at.

Granted, importing trim from Aust. and N.Z. is profitable for the blenders, but does that mean they are going to pay more for 50/50 trim than they have to?????????? NO, the supply of 50/50 trim with respect to demand sets that price...minus a reasonable profit for everyone involved until any price support reaches the producer...if ever!!!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
The raise in prices between 2004 and 2005 was an increase in demand DESPITE AN INCREASE IN IMPORTS.

To say one has more effect than the other, WITHOUT MEASURING THE IMPACT OF EACH, screams of economic ignorance of the beef industry.

~SH~

Classic self contradiction.

SH, please do not type unless you know what you are talking about.

SH:
The raise in prices between 2004 and 2005 was an increase in demand DESPITE AN INCREASE IN IMPORTS.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You can have an increase in imports that has a negative impact on the domestic market and still have an increase in the prices. Is your little "analysis" supposed to mean anything here?

Importing lean trim to blend and make hamburger takes the place of lower cuts of meat that are being filled with "enhancers" so they can sell cheap (or at higher margin) at walmart.

I had a real nice sirloin steak the other day that I know graded mid or high choice (yes, my sister in law bought it at Sam's). I have had a sirloin that was at the meat counter at walmart (yes, my sister in law bought it too) that was jacked up with "enhancers" and other fake stuff.

There was no comparison in the two steaks. One will never be bought again (what does this do to consumer demand?).

This is what your arguments support.

Someone should stick to varmits.
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
R-CALF USA Beef Checkoff Committee Chair Jim Hanna said he was disappointed in the outcome out of a series of summer meetings conducted by the Industry-Wide Beef Checkoff Task Force....

We knew from the outset that with the majority of the Task Force comprised of affiliates of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and other groups NCBA is closely allied with, there was little chance to seriously consider any issues other than increasing the assessment,” Hanna said. “R-CALF brought up a number of possible modifications to the program– including suggestions to earmark dollars to promote USA-born-and-raised products, to allow the Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) to contract directly with vendors, to expand the assessment to the packing industry, and to conduct a mandatory periodic referendum.”

Hanna said even though R-CALF USA didn't get all it wanted from the Task Force, being included in the task force is a sign of R-CALF's growing influence in the beef industry. "We were recognized as an important part of the cattle business," he said. "R-CALF as an organization has grown and grown in importance, and they recognized that without our support, getting these changes made were going to be difficult," he added. "And we felt that part of it was pretty critical to our organization," Hanna concluded.

How is it that r-calf feels " changes were going to be difficult without their support?" From what I read r-calf had 'problems' :
disappointed in the outcome, their proposals were not given serious consideration, and they didn't get all they wanted,

- An opportunity to petition for a referendum (passed ? ) r-calf , yes
- An adjustment of the checkoff rate (passed 11 - 4) r-calf, no
- Enhanced understanding of the Federation of State Beef Councils (passed 14 - 1) r-calf, no
- Making the checkoff more inclusive (passed, unanimously)
- “R-CALF also voted that the Federation should be removed from under the auspices of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, but that was voted down 11-4.
- r-calf proposed CBB to contract directly with vendors (defeated 11-4)

Is there 'minutes' (so to speak) of this meeting available on the web?
 

Tommy

Well-known member
SAAP...Is there 'minutes' (so to speak) of this meeting available on the web?


No. It was closed to the press and the group released what it wanted out.
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Tommy said:
SAAP...Is there 'minutes' (so to speak) of this meeting available on the web?


No. It was closed to the press and the group released what it wanted out.

That would, of course, pertain to r-calf also ....? As they are part of the group and had a news release.
 

ocm

Well-known member
S.S.A.P. said:
How is it that r-calf feels " changes were going to be difficult without their support?"

This task force only recommends changes. In order for the changes to take effect a bill authorizing the changes will have to pass Congress. Then a referendum of cattle producers will have to vote in favor of it.

If the most of the changes R-CALF wants are not part of a bill in Congress, then R-CALF will lobby to vote against it.

If a bill passes without most of those changes, then R-CALF members will likely vote against it in the referendum.

R-CALF members who own cattle are more numerous than NCBA members who own cattle (by my estimate). Does that answer your question.

If I remember correctly the referendum has to pass by much more than 50%.
 

Bill

Well-known member
ocm said:
S.S.A.P. said:
How is it that r-calf feels " changes were going to be difficult without their support?"

This task force only recommends changes. In order for the changes to take effect a bill authorizing the changes will have to pass Congress. Then a referendum of cattle producers will have to vote in favor of it.

If the most of the changes R-CALF wants are not part of a bill in Congress, then R-CALF will lobby to vote against it.

If a bill passes without most of those changes, then R-CALF members will likely vote against it in the referendum.

R-CALF members who own cattle are more numerous than NCBA members who own cattle (by my estimate). Does that answer your question.

If I remember correctly the referendum has to pass by much more than 50%.

What facts form the basis of your guess that there are more R-Klan members that own cattle than NCBA members?
 
Top