|
Who's the Boss
Regarding the Federation of State Beef Councils?
Written
By: Gary Deering, Sturgis, SD
April 2010
Fuel, to a seemingly ever eternal fire, between producers and
producer groups has been added recently with an arrogant proposal to
changes in the structure of the Federation of State Beef Councils.
The group making such a proposal, The National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association, which has housed the Federation since the merger of the
National Cattlemen’s Association and The National Livestock and Meat
Board/Beef Industry Council in 1996, seems to think it should all be
“business as usual”. One
thing NCBA appears to forget, is that, although they represent more
cattlemen than any other organization, boasting membership at somewhere
around 30,000 producers, the Federation of State Beef Councils, is paid
for, and funded by, some 956,000 cattle producing men and women, many of
which are not affiliated with any policy run organization.
Unless an NCBA member, I do not feel it is right to comment on
how they want to structure their organization, or on the day to day
business that they conduct, and although I would respect and hope NCBA
would have comments and opinions toward the Federation’s structure, I
do not feel it is right, nor fair, that they have assumed that they are
the only voice that speaks towards that structure.
Often
times our loyalty toward political and policy decisions, block our view
of what really matters. The
cattle producing sector is in a crisis, according to data compiled by
the USDA-NASS there were 1.35 million producers in 1988, compared with
956,500 today. Controls due
to environmental groups, government regulations, and simply undervalued
products that we sell, have producers wondering if and when their time
will come. One thing each
and every producer will agree on, regardless of organizational loyalty,
is we need to keep the beef industry profitable.
The Beef Checkoff, which was conceived through a Congressional
act and order in 1986, brings forth the idea of building beef demand
worldwide, through promotion, and research.
Although opinions on the effectiveness, and legality, of the
checkoff differ it was set up with the premise of building beef demand
without letting politics get in the way.
Every cattle producer pays the same one dollar per head,
regardless if they sell one or thousands of cattle every year, beef
importers pay one dollar per beef equivalent.
It is not supposed to be owned, nor represented, by any one
organization, or group of individuals, but rather the entire beef
industry. When an animal is
sold the seller remits one dollar, the state beef council, in which the
producer sells the animal, collects the dollar, sends fifty cents on to
the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, and keeps fifty cents for themselves. The
fifty cents, that the state keeps, is what has recently come into
debate. The state beef
councils decide what they want to do with the fifty cents, of which a
lot goes into the Federation, toward seats on the board, international
promotion, etc. The states
can also keep the money for themselves in order to promote various beef
promotion and research projects within their state, nationally, or
internationally. This brief
lesson, on the one dollar, may not be needed with the exception that it
appears NCBA needs to learn that the producers, through their State Beef
Councils, not policy organizations, control and have the final say on
the Federation of State Beef Councils.
In a survey
conducted in 2006 by the Gallop Organization, and funded by USDA,
producers were asked, “how, if at all, does NCBA’s involvement in
the program affect your opinion of the checkoff?”, only 29.7% of the
producers answered that they had a more positive opinion of NCBA’s
involvement. With this bold
attempt to single handedly take the State Beef Council’s authority
away, by restructuring the Federation; it will be interesting to see how
producer’s attitudes may change.
It appears
very safe to say that most agricultural organizations have a great deal
of concern about NCBA’s proposed governance structure.
Several areas of concern were expressed in a joint letter to
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsak, from several agricultural
organizations including; American Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union,
Livestock Marketing Association, National Livestock Producers
Association, National Milk Producers Association, and US Cattleman’s
Association. As a follow up
to the letter, Mary Kay Thatcher, director of ag policy for the American
Farm Bureau Association, was quoted as saying, “that the structure is
problematic from the perspective of policy having too much influence,
and problematic from the perspective that not every producer is a member
of NCBA”. In an
editorial, by Alan Guebert, R-Calf USA ceo Bill Bullard was quoted as
saying, “the proposed changes will give it more access to checkoff
dollars and without those extra dollars NCBA probably can’t exist,”
he goes on to say, “this is all about the future of NCBA, not the
future of the checkoff.”
NCBA
responded to these questions by unnecessarily defending the checkoff and
their effectiveness to be a contractor.
This was unnecessary since the checkoff and their contracting
status is not in question. The
only apparent thing they tried to clear up, towards the proposed task
forces recommendation, was the statement that everybody within the House
of Delegates does not have to be an NCBA member, but rather members
would consist of, “all individual members of NCBA, members of the
Federation of State Beef Councils, Breed Association Affiliates, and
invited guests, like members of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board”.
Within their proposal, the House of Delegates holds several
important responsibilities, including election of the board of directors
(who must be an individual NCBA member), and electing the operating
committee (who oversees and approves most checkoff contracts), so their
own defense made it even clearer that they do not want others meddling
in the checkoff, since the only chance anybody, but someone who is an
NCBA member, or a member of an affiliated organization, could belong is
if they were one of the few
State Beef Council Directors who is not an NCBA member.
The Beef
Checkoff has witnessed many things to be proud of through the years; it
has many new cuts of beef that has been developed to meet the fast paced
lifestyle in which we live, it has handled crises such as BSE hitting
the United States in December of 2003, there are countless hours devoted
to promoting United States Beef internationally, and I have yet to meet
anybody whether they live in the city or country that does not know the
saying “Beef Its What’s For Dinner”.
To effectively promote beef it will take an industry wide effort,
and I feel the checkoff has, and can deliver results.
With this
new proposal from NCBA (which is the largest contractor of the checkoff
receiving over 90% of checkoff funds) come many questions.
First of all NCBA must ask themselves if they have a right, as a
contractor, to tell the State Beef Councils how to structure their
organization. Secondly the
State Beef Councils must ask if they want to continue funding a
contractor who apparently can tell them how to spend their producers
money, or should they invest in other programs such as; the Northeast
Initiative, which promotes beef on
the east coast of the United States where checkoff funds are limited,
but millions of people live; international programs such as US Meat
Export Federation; or simply keep money within their state for
promotion, or research at their local universities.
As NCBA has stated, it is
up to the State Beef Councils to voluntarily invest their money, so it
may be time to see who really runs the Federation of State Beef
Councils, the producers or their contractor.
|
