Time for Two Beef Checkoffs?

[Anonymous]

Time for Two Beef Checkoffs?


Thursday, October 02, 2014/Categories: General News, Today's Top 5, Livestock Markets, Federal News, Farm Bill , USDA - United States Department of Agriculture, Organizations, Cattle, Ag Issues



Time for Two Beef Checkoffs?
Secretary Vilsack announced this week that he is setting plans in motion for a second beef checkoff.

Time for two beef checkoff programs? As far-fetched as it sounds, that could be the reality in just over a year.

Scott George is the immediate past president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Northern Ag Network spoke with him Thursday morning. He let us know that on Tuesday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack assembled a meeting of the Beef Checkoff Working Group in which eight of the 11 organizations in that group were represented.

In those discussions, George told us the Secretary announced that he was going to implement a new checkoff program for beef by January of 2016. He said the program was going to be operated under the 1996 Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act (generally known as the General Commodities Program). The new checkoff program, according to Secretary Vilsack, would be separate from the existing Beef Checkoff, and would be up for a referendum in three years.

While there are still a lot of details to be made clear and all changes will be open for public comment, this means that there could be two checkoffs for the cattle industry running simultaneously.

According to George, three groups were not in attendance at that meeting. Two, he knows, were not invited. Those were the Federation of State Beef Councils and the Cattlemen's Beef Board.


© Northern Ag Network 2014
Haylie Shipp

 

[Brad S]

The current check off was organized by producers, not the government, and certainly not someone from the sleaziest presidency in the history of the US. I'm skeptical, even though I support the check off, and would support a $5 check off. Anyone know where this second check off came from? Or any details. I don't see a need for the overhead of another management group. And I sure don't want the government involved anymore than they are.

 

[Faster horses]

The current check off was organized by producers, not the government, and certainly not someone from the sleaziest presidency in the history of the US. I'm skeptical, even though I support the check off, and would support a $5 check off. Anyone know where this second check off came from? Or any details. I don't see a need for the overhead of another management group. And I sure don't want the government involved anymore than they are.

EXACTLY!! And where is this money going and what are
they going to do with the funds? With the government involved I see it as another money-grab.

 

[Anonymous]

The current check off was organized by producers, not the government, and certainly not someone from the sleaziest presidency in the history of the US. I'm skeptical, even though I support the check off, and would support a $5 check off. Anyone know where this second check off came from? Or any details. I don't see a need for the overhead of another management group. And I sure don't want the government involved anymore than they are.

Problem is- in order to keep the check-off years ago against the challenges in court , NCBA had to argue that and get the courts to agree that it is a government tax...

Now it appears NCBA doesn't want to let go of their control over that tax- and allow any of the other cattle/beef associations access to the decision making and use of it....
The Secretary of Agriculture gave the cattle/beef/agriculture interested groups an option of working out an agreement-BUT apparently they are at an impasse and can't come to an agreement, so the battle continues ...


My personal feelings are that we could use a raise in the checkoff amounts- but that it will not pass a vote until NCBA's hands are totally out of it... Their history of abuses and misuses of checkoff funds have left too many producers leery...

The new checkoff program, according to Secretary Vilsack, would be separate from the existing Beef Checkoff, and would be up for a referendum in three years.

This is a way of setting up a new checkoff (outside of it going thru the NCBA's cookie jar)- and hopefully under a stand alone beef board--- which then may stand a chance of passing the referendum...

 

[loomixguy]

Did they pull Ebola off the golf course so he could sign off on this?

 

[Faster horses]

The current check off was organized by producers, not the government, and certainly not someone from the sleaziest presidency in the history of the US. I'm skeptical, even though I support the check off, and would support a $5 check off. Anyone know where this second check off came from? Or any details. I don't see a need for the overhead of another management group. And I sure don't want the government involved anymore than they are.

Problem is- in order to keep the check-off years ago against the challenges in court , NCBA had to argue that and get the courts to agree that it is a government tax...

Now it appears NCBA doesn't want to let go of their control over that tax- and allow any of the other cattle/beef associations access to the decision making and use of it....
The Secretary of Agriculture gave the cattle/beef/agriculture interested groups an option of working out an agreement-BUT apparently they are at an impasse and can't come to an agreement, so the battle continues ...


My personal feelings are that we could use a raise in the checkoff amounts- but that it will not pass a vote until NCBA's hands are totally out of it... Their history of abuses and misuses of checkoff funds have left too many producers leery...

The new checkoff program, according to Secretary Vilsack, would be separate from the existing Beef Checkoff, and would be up for a referendum in three years.

This is a way of setting up a new checkoff (outside of it going thru the NCBA's cookie jar)- and hopefully under a stand alone beef board--- which then may stand a chance of passing the referendum...

Yea, let the government fix it. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

The current check off was organized by producers, not the government, and certainly not someone from the sleaziest presidency in the history of the US. I'm skeptical, even though I support the check off, and would support a $5 check off. Anyone know where this second check off came from? Or any details. I don't see a need for the overhead of another management group. And I sure don't want the government involved anymore than they are.

Problem is- in order to keep the check-off years ago against the challenges in court , NCBA had to argue that and get the courts to agree that it is a government tax...

Now it appears NCBA doesn't want to let go of their control over that tax- and allow any of the other cattle/beef associations access to the decision making and use of it....
The Secretary of Agriculture gave the cattle/beef/agriculture interested groups an option of working out an agreement-BUT apparently they are at an impasse and can't come to an agreement, so the battle continues ...


My personal feelings are that we could use a raise in the checkoff amounts- but that it will not pass a vote until NCBA's hands are totally out of it... Their history of abuses and misuses of checkoff funds have left too many producers leery...

The new checkoff program, according to Secretary Vilsack, would be separate from the existing Beef Checkoff, and would be up for a referendum in three years.

This is a way of setting up a new checkoff (outside of it going thru the NCBA's cookie jar)- and hopefully under a stand alone beef board--- which then may stand a chance of passing the referendum...

Yea, let the government fix it. :roll:

In its decision, Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association and Nebraska Cattlemen v. Livestock Marketing Association (Nos. 03-1164 and 03-1165), a majority of the Court agreed with check-off defenders that the programs are in fact "government speech" .


"Compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns,"..."Citizens may challenge compelled support of private speech, but have no First Amendment right not to fund government speech."

 

[Brad S]

The ncba may well have many overlapping members as the check off board, but I think they're pretty much independent. Mrj can explain it much better than me.

 

[Brad S]

What abuses is ncba guilty of? As far as I know, the check off has been run well.

 

[Anonymous]

Brad I've been on this site since 2003- and those complaints have made up a major portion of the Bull Session... Most involved misuse of those checkoff tax funds or not allowing other cattle organizations any say or use of those checkoff tax funds...
Altho the archives only go back to 2005 (when new site format came about)- here are just a few of the continuing argument that jumped out in a search:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=52158&highlight=audit

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46172&highlight=audit

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23215&highlight=checkoff

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22795&highlight=checkoff

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5195&highlight=checkoff

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16275&highlight=checkoff

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16275&highlight=checkoff

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2659&highlight=checkoff

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1887&highlight=checkoff

Often the misuse of the cattle tax involved the NCBA having too much control over the CBB and then using it for promoting and recruiting for the NCBA organization (which I have seen personally) or using it/those tax funds to pay for NCBA costs since they used shared resources and personnel ...

Much of the argument was/is over the NCBA controlled CBB using the majority of the tax funding for their own members to contract projects- and not awarding any contracts to other cattle/Ag organizations (R-CALF, OCM, Farmers Union, US Cattlemans Assoc., National Livestock Producers Assn, Farm Burea, etc...) And NCBA's ties to the Meatpackers (AMI) often comes into opposition with many of the other cattlemen/Ag groups... They should not be allowed to use cattle tax dollars to promote their political beliefs..

U.S. Cattlemen's vice president Chuck Kiker said Vilsack told the enhancement group he was offering them a way to get more money for beef industry programs while they had been unable to reach consensus. Kiker said he does not understand "how NCBA can fight an increase in the checkoff," and that NCBA does not want anything "that is not on their terms."

The members of the working group that could not come to an agreement were National Farmers Union, National Livestock Producers Association, U.S. Cattlemen's Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American National CattleWomen, Meat Importers Council of America, National Milk Producers Federation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Federation of State Beef Councils and the Cattlemen's Beef Board. - See more at: http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/24193/group/Agribusiness/#sthash.6zjQ48MV.dpuf

I have long supported a complete separation of the Cattlemans Beef Board and the NCBA... Remove even the appearance of impropriety!

But it appears the NCBA is not going to voluntarily do that... And without moving the CBB and the Checkoff totally away from the NCBA, I don't believe you can get producers to vote in the referendum for a raise of the tax! Let alone get a bipartisan Congress to OK it...

 

[mrj]

Well, that was quite the exercise in 'going back in time' all the way to 2003 or earlier, unless I missed a date or two.

Same old rehashing of issues long ago resolved, for most people.

Obviously, nothing qualifying for charges were found in extensive audits of a complex system. Designed that way in order to be as accountable as possible and to accurately account for various groups working together for the best use of limited funds.

Please recall that NCBA had long worked with the voluntary National Livestock and Meat Board checkoff in support of the beef portion of that group. Flaws and problems with a voluntary system needed to be improved upon. The many people from many organizations who came up with the plans which eventually became the mandatory Beef Checkoff worked diligently to make it the best possible system. Being run by amateurs, so to speak, no one expected perfection. AND maybe most importantly, those who believed in the need for a beef checkoff held no illusions that those who opposed the idea from the beginning would quietly join in the effort. I will say I was young and foolish enough to believe most would work for the good of the cattle/beef business.

Most of the arguments in these posts are the same old ones from the same old contenders and no amount of explanation will change their minds.

The national Farmers Union, R-CALF, OCM and their friends in politics and industry continue working to harm NCBA.

Newsflash: NCBA and it's predecessor organizations have been around since the late 1800's, is stronger than ever, and the disappearance of the Beef Checkoff won't change that. It will end the great research that has brought us so many modern beef cuts and new preparation methods which are pleasing to younger consumers, however. I'd sure hate to lose all that.

Why are we STILL believing that consumers want ONLY country of origin, when many efforts (with beef checkoff dollars) to ask them point blank what they want, the answer is they want farmer or rancher of origin. They want to meet us and learn how we produce the beef we are selling to them. The 'branded' beef they want is not simply country, they want what R-CALF refused to give them with COOL, they want YOUR name and information about how you feed and care for your cattle. And they are getting that with some of the branded beef programs which have been around for quite some time.

Brad, I believe the fingerprints on this 'new' Beef Checkoff are quite clear: R-CALF and cohorts working with politicians, especially our Sec. of Ag, to get their way. Not the first time politicians have interfered, with a little push from unhappy producers who disagreed with their state Beef Council choices for various boards, and got changes made at the 'higher level'.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, that was quite the exercise in 'going back in time' all the way to 2003 or earlier, unless I missed a date or two.

Same old rehashing of issues long ago resolved, for most people.

Obviously, nothing qualifying for charges were found in extensive audits of a complex system. Designed that way in order to be as accountable as possible and to accurately account for various groups working together for the best use of limited funds.

Please recall that NCBA had long worked with the voluntary National Livestock and Meat Board checkoff in support of the beef portion of that group. Flaws and problems with a voluntary system needed to be improved upon. The many people from many organizations who came up with the plans which eventually became the mandatory Beef Checkoff worked diligently to make it the best possible system. Being run by amateurs, so to speak, no one expected perfection. AND maybe most importantly, those who believed in the need for a beef checkoff held no illusions that those who opposed the idea from the beginning would quietly join in the effort. I will say I was young and foolish enough to believe most would work for the good of the cattle/beef business.

Most of the arguments in these posts are the same old ones from the same old contenders and no amount of explanation will change their minds.

The national Farmers Union, R-CALF, OCM and their friends in politics and industry continue working to harm NCBA.

Newsflash: NCBA and it's predecessor organizations have been around since the late 1800's, is stronger than ever, and the disappearance of the Beef Checkoff won't change that. It will end the great research that has brought us so many modern beef cuts and new preparation methods which are pleasing to younger consumers, however. I'd sure hate to lose all that.

Why are we STILL believing that consumers want ONLY country of origin, when many efforts (with beef checkoff dollars) to ask them point blank what they want, the answer is they want farmer or rancher of origin. They want to meet us and learn how we produce the beef we are selling to them. The 'branded' beef they want is not simply country, they want what R-CALF refused to give them with COOL, they want YOUR name and information about how you feed and care for your cattle. And they are getting that with some of the branded beef programs which have been around for quite some time.

Brad, I believe the fingerprints on this 'new' Beef Checkoff are quite clear: R-CALF and cohorts working with politicians, especially our Sec. of Ag, to get their way. Not the first time politicians have interfered, with a little push from unhappy producers who disagreed with their state Beef Council choices for various boards, and got changes made at the 'higher level'.

Montana Stockgrowers on the Threat of a Second Beef Checkoff


Wednesday, October 22, 2014/Categories: General News, Today's Top 5, Federal News, USDA - United States Department of Agriculture, Organizations, NCBA - National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Cattle



Montana Stockgrowers on the Threat of a Second Beef Checkoff

Press Release by the Montana Stockgrowers Association



In response to beef industry stakeholder concerns about the structure and proposed reform of the national beef checkoff program, Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA) encourages cattle producers to consider critically what is at stake for the industry research, education and promotion efforts.


On September 30th, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced intentions to implement a new supplemental beef checkoff program by January 2016. The new program would operate under the 1996 Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act, separate from our current 1985 Beef Promotion and Research Act. A referendum on the new proposal would be held within three years of implementation. The proposal will be published by the end of 2014 or early 2015 in the Federal Register.



This approach is an alternative to the program enhancements being negotiated by the Beef Checkoff Enhancement Working Group, which involved membership organizations representing industry stakeholders. In August, the group reviewed a draft memorandum of understanding that would serve as the negotiated enhancement. Soon after, the National Farmers Union withdrew from the effort, citing "the process is unlikely to result in necessary reform. It is time for the USDA to react to beef producers' demand to reform this system."



This outcome is unfortunate, especially during this time of strong cattle market fundamentals and an industry outlook that will require strategic investment in promotion and research. MSGA's response and approach to this is two-fold.



First, MSGA sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack along with forty-four state cattlemen's associations outlining our structural concerns between the 1996 Act and the 1985 Act. Two specific points are focused on governance and limited coordination between qualified state beef councils and their federation.



Secondly, despite our opposition, Secretary Vilsack has given no indication that he will withdraw the proposed rule. Therefore, MSGA will be working within the rulemaking process to offer design recommendations and comments. Our focus will be to influence decisions that yield the best outcome even with the working group's inability to find a compromised solution.


The scope of MSGA's input to the proposed rule will include the following:

•MSGA supports an increase in the beef check-off assessment, along with a petition and referendum model. Emphasis should be made on structuring the most efficient and effective process to increasing the check-off.

•MSGA also supports greater flexibility and competitive contract proposals by removing any reference to the charter date of an established national, non-profit, beef industry organization. MSGA will recommend that return on investment should be a key evaluation metric.

•A balanced portion of check-off revenues paid by U.S. producers should be allocated to promote U.S. beef within the context of federal country of origin regulations.

•MSGA recognizes the importance of government oversight, but we do not want complete government control. It is critical to allow stakeholders who pay in to have decision-making authority.






Undoubtedly, USDA will likely have an effect on our industry's investment program and its economic value. Our approach is simple. Focus resource on the ability to anticipate and affect the formation, enforcement and modification of the proposal and ensure that it has a positive outcome for the broader beef industry.

I beg to differ MRJ- this isn't just R-CALF, OCM United States Cattleman Association or the NFU...
Even the Montana Stockgrowers see that NCBA's blackmail tactics and failure to work with all the other national organizations is not going to work- and that the only way cattlemen/beef producers can now get a raise in the check-off is to work with the USDA and try and get as much producer input into the NEW check-off as possible....

For many years a lot of folks have supported a raise in the check-off- with the only constant negative I've heard is that it has to be removed from NCBA's control first....

This is kind of surprising coming from an organization that once required you to join the NCBA in order to belong to the Stockgrowers... :shock:

 

[Mike]

If two check-offs are OK, why not ten, or twenty? Heck, we could have one for every organization to play with.

Spread the wealth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

If two check-offs are OK, why not ten, or twenty? Heck, we could have one for every organization to play with.

Spread the wealth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

First, MSGA sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack along with forty-four state cattlemen's associations outlining our structural concerns between the 1996 Act and the 1985 Act. Two specific points are focused on governance and limited coordination between qualified state beef councils and their federation.



Secondly, despite our opposition, Secretary Vilsack has given no indication that he will withdraw the proposed rule. Therefore, MSGA will be working within the rulemaking process to offer design recommendations and comments. Our focus will be to influence decisions that yield the best outcome even with the working group's inability to find a compromised solution.


The scope of MSGA's input to the proposed rule will include the following:

•MSGA supports an increase in the beef check-off assessment, along with a petition and referendum model. Emphasis should be made on structuring the most efficient and effective process to increasing the check-off.

•MSGA also supports greater flexibility and competitive contract proposals by removing any reference to the charter date of an established national, non-profit, beef industry organization. MSGA will recommend that return on investment should be a key evaluation metric.

•A balanced portion of check-off revenues paid by U.S. producers should be allocated to promote U.S. beef within the context of federal country of origin regulations.

•MSGA recognizes the importance of government oversight, but we do not want complete government control. It is critical to allow stakeholders who pay in to have decision-making authority.

I think everyone prefers one check-off but can see the handwriting on the wall- that absent NCBA agreeing to any changes and the working group agreeing on that proposal- no raise will ever pass Congress....

So then common sense says that since NCBA is holding the current check-off hostage to the old way or no way thinking, then the only alternative in order to raise our check-off amounts is a NEW check-off...

First, MSGA sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack along with forty-four state cattlemen's associations outlining our structural concerns between the 1996 Act and the 1985 Act. Two specific points are focused on governance and limited coordination between qualified state beef councils and their federation.

And rather then spreading the wealth- I think many of those state cattlemans organizations can see that with the changes in the law removing the wording that allows NCBA to be the only contractor Ag group to manage check-off funds will actually be more efficient and return more bang for your buck in the long run....
And that the language needs to be updated to bring the beef check-off in line with the other commodities- whereby its up to the producers to raise, lower, continue the check-off's thru referendum votes and not up to Congress.... (ex.- I believe the lab checkoff has been raised several times to go along with changing times... And its my understanding this was done by the producers- and needed no action of Congress.....)

 

[Brad S]

Perhapse 2 competing check offs would benefit the industry - like when you sell calves you could designate which promoters get the money. Yes, the duplicate administration is a negative, but I like the idea of each producer having more determination where his money goes.

Here's the deal, I consider mike callicrate a friend and a good cattleman, but we simply disagree with regards to the NCA/RCALF. He's not changing and neither am I. Allowing mike to direct his money in a direction he supports seems less tyrannical and not so heavy handed.

 

[mrj]

Chances are, we will get the 'opportunity' to have two beef checkoffs. Two sets of overhead, and leadership. No way will it work unless people can have a say as to which one their money goes to. Sure hope the new one will be as scrutinized as the existing one. Hopefully there won't be the 'dirty tricks' continuing against the original. Can't imagine anyone wanting a checkoff run by those who were against the original one and fought the entire time to find ways to kill it after it was passed and had years of approval by contributors, but time will tell and results will be interesting.

A major shortfall of the current one has been not enough success in getting contributors to understand the scope, work, and successes of the current checkoff. Several times, surveys show little producer understanding of what has been done and the benefits of checkoff programs. Pretty frustrating when producers complain about 'advertising to ourselves', yet that attempt to tell producers what is being done with their money is required in the law.

Personally, I will have a great deal of trouble understanding any possible benefit from allying with groups like Water Watch and some others listed as demanding this new checkoff. They are NOTHING but trouble for even the best environmentalists in agriculture with their extreme views regarding land use and controls thereof.

Fighting against 'the evil packers' has long been a measure used to manipulate those selling cattle in auction markets, yet they have stepped up to the plate and put their money into many valuable research projects enabling us to make our beef checkoff dollars stretch further. There are quite a number of cattle producers who decidedly benefit from payments by packers for higher quality cattle. Don't think we will see such benefits from playing cozy with some of the groups listed in that coalition calling for the new checkoff!!!

mrj

 

[Brad S]

Very astute observation, and well said. The rcalf guys are being exploited by socialist groups. All producers must unite as much as possible because plenty groups want us all gone.

 

[knabe]

What isn't being done with current checkoff$

If two check offs are good, why not 40?