|
The
Last Frontier II
By: Vaughn Meyer, Reva, SD
November
2010
Throughout history “The Last
Frontier” has been associated with the settling of the West during the
19th century. As
children this time frame of history was narrated through history books
and multi generation family recollections.
Probably some of the most vivid attributes to this period were
the Louisiana Purchase, the Lewis and Clark Expedition, the Indian -
Whiteman wars, the large cattle barons, huge cattle drives and our very
own roughrider president, Teddy Roosevelt.
Near the end of the 1800s we
witnessed a new policy of Homesteading which introduced the concept of
family production agriculture. This
introduction of family ownership and management of agriculture created
more incentive for individual achievement and our industry flourished.
As agriculture grew it stimulated creativity on the national
level which economically and industrially established the U.S. as a
world leader.
However as the number of
family farms and livestock numbers increased and competition for
our product decreased, Congress realizing the need for competition and
fair markets for our livestock drafted the Packers and Stockyards Act of
1921. As the 20th
century drew to a close it became apparent to livestock producers that
without tools for the enforcement of the P&S Act we still remained
at the mercy of the anti competitive practices of the packers.
However during the 2008 Farm Bill
debate our Congressional leaders also became aware of the need for rules
to enforce competition in the market place and the need to restore
fairness within our industry. They
commanded the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration (GIPSA) under the leadership of GIPSA Administrator Mr. J
Dudley Butler to draft rules to enforce the P&S Act.
Nearly two years later Mr. Butler and his staff have addressed
the congressional mandate and proposed new rules known as the GIPSA
Rules.
As with all new game rules which are
directed at leveling the playing field the opponents are those who
possessed an unchecked advantage over other key players. In this case
the packing industry, through its
affiliated voices of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA)
and the American Meat Institute (AMI),
has realized a 90 year old reign over the production side of our
industry. They are squealing louder than stuck hogs and labeling
Administrator Butler and his GIPSA rules as the destruction of the
industry.
In a recent attempt to degrade Mr.
Butler’s motives they portray him as a litigation happy trial lawyer
who is attempting to drum up business for his post GIPSA years.
Mr. Butler and his boss, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack,
have been accused of being indifferent for not considering the request
by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson and 114 other
congressmen to delay the GIPSA rule with another economic analysis
study. They also connect him
to a few so called “other liberal - leaning cattle organizations”.
What critics of Administrator Butler
fail to mention is that similar to the other 955,000 livestock producers
Mr. J. Dudley Butler is a producer from Mississippi and a former ranch
partner from Wyoming. As a fellow producer from S.D. maybe we should
look at the producer side of this GIPSA Administrator like:
MAYBE … Mr. J Dudley Butler
possesses compassion for his fellow livestock producers as he has
witnessed the individual sorrow and defeat of the 370,000 producers and
their spouses and children as they lost their livelihoods!
MAYBE… J Dudley Butler has
witnessed the hunger and suffering of children in other countries who
have insufficient production agriculture!
MAYBE… J Dudley Butler has
experienced first hand the destruction of family enterprise hog and
poultry farming and wishes to prevent the same coercion and threats from
raping the cattle industry!
MAYBE… Mr. J Dudley Butler
foresees the 20% drop in producer carcass share over the past 20 years
is correlated to the smallest U.S. cow herd since 1952 which will have a
profound effect on the future safety and procurement of our nation’s
food supply!
MAYBE… Mr. J Dudley Butler noticed
that Senate Ag Chairman Collin Peterson and his 114 colleges were the
recipients of over $48.6 million of Agri Pac campaign contributions!
MAYBE… Mr. J Dudley Butler has
observed the past 90 years of unchecked pilfering of our industry by the
packing industry and affiliates and he realizes a change to honest moral
values is necessary for the survival of agriculture!
JUST MAYBE… Mr. J Dudley Butler
notices the similarities of the “Last Frontier” of the 1800’s and
the “Last Frontier” of the present beef industry which ironically is
precipitated by the same packing industry.
Possible he also recognizes that a United States without a viable
livestock industry to spur prosperity in our cities may well become the
“Last Frontier” of the world!
In summary, Mr. Paul Engler of
Cactus Feeders testified in Ft. Collins that as a child he bought his
first calves to feed and today he feeds millions annually.
Just maybe Mr. J Dudley Butler, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack,
and US Attorney General Eric Holder realize that that would not be
possible in today’s broken market system.
Just maybe they and hundreds of thousands of fellow producers are
attempting to salvage a market system that will provide similar
opportunities for future generations!
As livestock producers we can
restore U.S. family agriculture and rebuild our rural communities
through comments of support for the GIPSA rule at comments.gipsa@usda.gov.
Or, Fax to
202-690-2173, or at the Federal e-rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov
Thank
you.
Vaughn
Meyer, a concerned livestock producer
Reva,
SD
|
|
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.
|
