Who Did the NCBA Corner (Buy)?

[Tex]

Who did NCBA actually corner?
MEADOW, S.D. — We were angered to see recent headline of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association claiming "147 members of Congress corner USDA on proposed GIPSA rule." The South Dakota Stockgrowers Association questions the accuracy of many of the statements by NCBA President Bill Donald and remains curious as to what NCBA actually cornered.

By: Shane Kolb,

Video
Send
Print
Butler Machinery
Butler Machinery
Sales Pros! Better Pay, Better Benefits, Better Job!
Send
Print
Heartland Capital Group LLC
Heartland Capital Group LLC
AFFORDABLE LEASE PROGRAMS CASH FLOW MANAGEMENT
Send
Print
Mathews Company
Mathews Company
NEED KAN-SUN DRYER PARTS?
Video
Send
Print
Gutter Topper of North Dakota
Gutter Topper of North Dakota
10% Off If You Call Before 7/15!
Video
Send
Print
Breezy Point Resort
Breezy Point Resort
Midweek Family Holiday Starting at only $595!
Video
Send
Print
S&S Transport
S&S Transport
We have a Great Opportunity for a FT Mechanic!
Send
Print
Mid-Central Equipment
Mid-Central Equipment
Virnig 66" rock bucket w/ bolt on grapple $1850.00.
Video
Send
Print
Butler Machinery
Butler Machinery
Sales Pros! Better Pay, Better Benefits, Better Job!
Send
Print
Heartland Capital Group LLC
Heartland Capital Group LLC
AFFORDABLE LEASE PROGRAMS CASH FLOW MANAGEMENT

Previous Next
view all offers | sign up for email offers | add your business

MEADOW, S.D. — We were angered to see recent headline of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association claiming "147 members of Congress corner USDA on proposed GIPSA rule." The South Dakota Stockgrowers Association questions the accuracy of many of the statements by NCBA President Bill Donald and remains curious as to what NCBA actually cornered.

The NCBA press release apparently was referring to a "dear colleague" letter circulated by Reps. Jim Costa, D-Calif., Reid Ribble, R-Wis., and Frank Lucas, R-Okla., in the U.S. House and signed by 144 other House members. That's barely one-third of the 435 House members, and that portion of the pie doesn't have any corners.

The letter seemingly was brought forward by the American Meat Institute and NCBA's lobbyists in an attempt to derail the proposed new Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration rule — a rule that was ordered by Congress via the 2008 farm bill to clarify certain anticompetitive marketing practices currently used by the meatpacking industry. NCBA claims that it "stood up for U.S. cattlemen and women" when it initiated this letter.

Speaking for itself

The NCBA certainly doesn't stand for me. In fact, NCBA's statements fly in the face of the adamant support of the proposed GIPSA rule by the producer-members of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association and 239 other producer organizations nationwide. NCBA speaks for its own membership which, by our estimates, is less than 5 percent all U.S. cattle producers and far from cornering anyone.

The purpose of NCBA's letter to Congress was to request a new public comment period before the final GIPSA rules are published claiming that USDA should revise its proposed rule based on more public input.

I don't buy it. When the proposed rules first were published in June 2010, USDA opened a 60-day period for public comment. After complaints from NCBA, AMI and their meatpacking friends, USDA extended the comment period an additional 90 days, resulting in more than 60,000 submitted comments from producers and organizations such as NCBA and AMI. During that time, USDA hosted a series of "listening sessions" across the country where hundreds of individuals and organizations were represented including NCBA, AMI and several meatpacking companies.

Fair market

It seems clear to me that NCBA, AMI and their meatpacker friends are not actually interested in a revision to these rules. They intend to kill the GIPSA rule because they have benefited from the lack of defined rules and regulations in the act for decades.

The intent of the proposed GIPSA rules is to bring about a transparent livestock market and hold meat packers accountable for their captive supplies, unfair trade actions, unprecedented market access and other market irregularities. If the meat packers truly are innocent of these accusations, then the transparency called for in the proposed rules should be the perfect opportunity to prove their claims that they aren't doing anything wrong.

Maybe they actually cornered themselves.

Shane Kolb serves as the vice-president of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association. He works as a full-time brand inspector for the state of South Dakota and runs a family cow-calf operation near Meadow, S.D.

What an insult the NCBA has become to the producers.

The AMI and meat packers use them as a tool.

They are the meat packer's whore.

I can see the "good" people at NCBA leaving the NCBA if they really cared about their producer constituents.



Commentary on the end provided to Nemrancher who wants everyone to be nice to each other.

Tex

 

[nenmrancher]

Tex,
The only way the beef industry that you are a part of will ever get any where is to stop with the stupid bullsh-t that is going on and get back to work promoting beef. I didnt say that everyone needs to be nice to each other I said that they need to put petty personal differences aside when they are appointed to such things as the CBB and work for the good of the industry not their own personal cause. From what you post on here I am have begun to think that you want to do away with the check off, ncba and all packers. Course I would like to know what you expect people to do with their cattle after you have run all the packers out of buisness. Oh yeah thats right you raise cattle not beef so its not your problem. That shortsightedness is what is going to kill our industry.

 

[Soapweed]

Tex,
The only way the beef industry that you are a part of will ever get any where is to stop with the stupid bullsh-t that is going on and get back to work promoting beef. I didnt say that everyone needs to be nice to each other I said that they need to put petty personal differences aside when they are appointed to such things as the CBB and work for the good of the industry not their own personal cause. From what you post on here I am have begun to think that you want to do away with the check off, ncba and all packers. Course I would like to know what you expect people to do with their cattle after you have run all the packers out of buisness. Oh yeah thats right you raise cattle not beef so its not your problem. That shortsightedness is what is going to kill our industry.

Well said, nenmrancher. :clap:

 

[Tex]

Tex,
The only way the beef industry that you are a part of will ever get any where is to stop with the stupid bullsh-t that is going on and get back to work promoting beef. I didnt say that everyone needs to be nice to each other I said that they need to put petty personal differences aside when they are appointed to such things as the CBB and work for the good of the industry not their own personal cause. From what you post on here I am have begun to think that you want to do away with the check off, ncba and all packers. Course I would like to know what you expect people to do with their cattle after you have run all the packers out of buisness. Oh yeah thats right you raise cattle not beef so its not your problem. That shortsightedness is what is going to kill our industry.

The CBB, from what I understand, has been composed largely of political appointments. In the past, those political appointments were geared to support the meat industry's goals which were in direct contradiction to producer's goals of getting the most value for their products in the market place. That is the reason for the checkoff, not to distribute meat packer interests in D. C. or to subsidize meat packer interests.

I think the NCBA leadership has been misinformed as to the GIPSA rules and what they mean by meat packer interests in the NCBA to the point that it is apparent they have drunk the meat packer kool aid.

There should be no reason why producers can not work with meat packers to increase beef demand, but allowing meat packers to misrepresent the GIPSA rules (probably because they didn't read them and listened to meat packer spin) showed lack of competence.

I believe in the past the CBB board members allowed some meat packer creep that has resulted in an all out war of control of the check off dollars. They should not be used by meat packer interests against producer interests. I think the CBB is trying to rectify this. I think former Sec. Johanns appointed people who were more to the meat packer side of things than the producer side of things.

If the checkoff brings higher prices to meat packers but not producers, it will be just a wasted tax on producers. There has to be a return to the producers, not just the meat packers or the program is a failure.

Everyone should recognize this.

More dollars need to go into actual advertisement than meetings and overhead and if a group like the NCBA uses its political connections to undo the laws of the land that protect producers, they should be cut out of the check off dollars so fast your head could spin.

What has happened is truly amazing with little thought by NCBA leadership. Now, it might be the case that they will do the right thing in the end and that the testimony they gave at the Ag. hearings was given to them and they didn't know really what was going on or what it meant, but if they stand behind those statements without recognizing what the GIPSA rules do and don't do, they should be fired or face whatever penalties might be brought against them.

The new CBB seems to be doing that.

I have no problem with NCBA people who were not involved or were somewhat duped (except that they were duped), and I am sure they are fine people. That does not excuse their incompetence.

I would like the dots to be connected to where their actual testimony came from (it was obviously meat packer attorney talking points). I think the NCBA could be cleaned up and preform its proper function but blaming the CBB for doing its job will NOT get them anywhere. Their insolence is NOT acceptable and without a proper change at the NCBA, they should not receive ANY more check off dollars.

If you disagree with this, write down why.

Have you understood the "competitive harm" theory pushed by meat packer attorneys and what that means to individual producers?

That one new "theory" will undermine all the rules by the Packers and Stockyards Act on everything from proper weighing of livestock to all of the economic protections against fraud by meat packers.

This is the slide the NCBA has been on by listening to meat packer interests.

Is that really what you want?

Tex