Butting Heads on the National Beef Checkoff
If you have been paying attention the last couple of weeks, then it isn’t fresh news that the Beef Promotion Operating Committee met to discuss and approve their 2009 Fiscal Year Budget for the national beef checkoff program initiatives. If you have caught my past blog entries at Chewing The Cud, then it is also not new to you that I’m extremely upset and disappointed that of the $7 million cut from the 2009 budget, the Operating Committee voted to eliminate the National Beef Ambassador Program (NBAP).
As a past ambassador myself, I can tell you from personal experience that the NBAP is one of the premier youth leadership organizations in the United States. With a small budget of $118,000, the NBAP brings five passionate and enthusiastic young people together to travel the country for a year, working to increase the demand for beef and educate producers about the national checkoff program. In fact, on this miniscule budget, ambassadors produce 20 million media impression, 115,000 consumer impressions and 24,000 student impressions in a single year. Now, in my opinion, those are checkoff dollars well spent.
Forgive me for my soapbox.
Yesterday, Senator Jon Tester proposed a bill to amend the national beef checkoff to allow for other contractors to be able to work with the Operating Committee on program initiatives as well as allot 30% of all checkoff dollars to be spent to promote U.S. beef. To see full details, check out the first headline listed at BEEF Daily.
This bill is supported by the United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA), the organization that branched away from R-CALF in 2007. However, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has some major concerns regarding this bill and the effects the proposed amendments would have on checkoff funded research and promotional events.
All I have to say, is we need to get our act together to come to a common consensus on how the checkoff dollars should be spent. And, it’s about time we start listening to the desires of cattle producers on how they want their hard-earned dollars spent. How about you? What side are you on? Do you like the checkoff as is, or would you support certain amendments to the program? The debate is on, folks.
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I think that Troy Marshall had some good thoughts on this in today’s Weekly. You can read the whole thing at http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/1003-mandatory-cool-checkoff-marry/.
But essentially he said it was time for producers to put their foot down, like the nation is doing, to nip this partisanship and start to get something done. These fueds are being carried on at the expense of all of us, and we’re too consumed by our viewpoints to be willing to compromise and move on.
As he said, “the problem with mandatory COOL has always been that it was a red herring; it was just a chess piece in the game between those who felt the changes occurring in the industry represented opportunity and needed to be dealt with proactively, and those who felt these changes represented significant risk and had to be fought. It was about globalization, value-based marketing and a host of other factors simmering between these two segments for quite some time.”
Tester’s legislation is just the latest manifestation of this ongoing feud. As Troy says, “The checkoff-funding mechanism must be modernized, as well. Inflation has devalued the original impact of the 1986 legislation by at least half the value of each $1 contributed.”
October 12th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Frankly, I was hoping people would embrace Senator Jon Tester’s interest in enhancing the beef checkoff instead of feeling threatened by the idea. Troy Marshall is just plain wrong about some things that need to be corrected.
Senator Tester’s bill answers producer concerns in many areas. Senator Tester’s legislation does not “resurrect the checkoff battle”. Making the checkoff more transparent and accountable will likely result in more producer support for an increase in the per head assessment. If the Beef Act is not modernized, no one is optimistic about producer support for any increase.
Marshall writes that the checkoff program has “already taken steps to increase access to bidding for checkoff dollars”. However, at the most recent Cattlemen’s Beef Board meeting, the budget for the American Cattlewomen’s Authorization Request (AR) to hold the National Beef Cook-Off was reduced by $225,000 and the National Beef Ambassador Program was cut altogether. The National Livestock Producers Association’s (NLPA) subcontract with the CBB to provide the Beefmobile was eliminated resulting in NLPA being terminated as a checkoff contractor altogether. That leaves the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) as the winning bidder of more than 90% of CBB allocated dollars. The 1985-enacted Beef Act language precludes any organization established after 1986 from competing for checkoff contracts. It’s time to change that because there are other organizations that could and should be contracting for checkoff funded work. Increased competition for checkoff contracts will only improve the services provided, which will benefit those who pay the bills.
Holding a referendum on the checkoff will hold CBB decision makers accountable. That same referendum could be used for cattlemen to vote on enhancements to the checkoff, such as an increase in the assessment. It is not a waste of funds to provide a democratic voice for those who foot the bills.
I do agree with Mr. Marshall about one thing. COOL does relate to globalization and value-based marketing. If the U.S. beef industry wants to remain competitive we had better begin with the largest beef market in the world - the United States of America - and we better start working together to accomplish that competitive edge.
Marshall attempts to reduce these public debates about improving the checkoff to a “feud” or an “internal vendetta”. I believe the legislation brought forth was an attempt to enhance the program by advancing ignored ideas and to promote our product - U.S. beef - not to start a feud, rather, it’s just good business.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment:
Register Here or Log in Here.