Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

I've been staying out of the recent fray about COOL being waged by NCBA, AMI, R-Calf, and USCA. I've been really busy and haven't wanted to deal with the situation. The law is here and I have to pay the costs of it, so why argue about it. R-Calf and USCA are very aggressively pushing for it and AMI doesn't want it and NCBA is lukewarm about the situation. Google around and you can find out about the battle going on if you really want. What I wanted to do was talk about my take on this situation.

If you've read here very long you will know I reluctantly support COOL. I support it because the public has the right to know where their meat comes from, but reluctantly because it is going to cost the producers and consumers of beef a lot of money to do this. The consumer will be paying more for the information provided and I as a producer will relieve less money for my critters and have to provide some amount of ungodly amount of information to the supply chain to prove the cattle were born in the US. These in my opinion are fact.

I know people will say that it will bring me money. They base this on the fact that consumers in surveys say that if they had the choice, they would buy US Beef. Sorry,I don't buy it. What consumers do and what they say they will do can be two different things. Fine they say they would purchase US Beef, but what would they do when confronted with the situation? Say you had some consumers in your average Wally World looking at the meat counter at some ground beef. Half of the ground beef prominently displays a label, US Beef, and the other half displays a label of Country Of Origin, Unknown. Now these consumers look at the beef and there is absolutely no visual difference in the beef, they look the same to the untrained lay persons eye. Then they look at the price. They see the price of the US Beef is say 20 cents a pound more expensive than the Unknown beef. This is a reasonable number for cost due to the massive amounts of paperwork that is going to be required by the government or meat packing plants for COOL. So here we have consumers faced with meat that looks the same to them but that has a significant price difference do to a little sign that says where it comes from. What would the majority of US Consumers do when faced with this situation? You got it, buy the cheaper product. Remember, these are the people shopping at Wally World where price is way more important than quality and that equals a lot of people in the US. I believe that the large majority of consumers will base their buying decisions this way. So it will be no significant help to the US Beef industry and just make a paperwork nightmare for us.

Let's go beyond on the example I gave you. Let's place our selves in a higher end grocery store, in this area that would be an Albertsons. They usually have higher quality produce, meat and seafood. So, with COOL in effect you go up to the dispaly of chicken looking to buy a chicken with the government approved, Product of the US on it. You look around and can not find a single label proclaiming this. Why is this? That's simple, the COOL law we are talking about exempts chickens in the US. So all the people out there claiming cool will make our food supply safer, how does this do that when the largest source of protein in Americans diet is exempt from the law? Can anyone please answer this? I know that not much chicken is imported but why are we exempting the really big agri-business product, chickens? So beef and pork producers are going to have a burdensome paperwork requirements because of COOL yet chickens are exempt. Hell, it looks to me like the chicken industry did this to us to drive the cost of their main competitors products up and make chicken price seem relatively cheap to the average consumer. How's that for a conspiracy theory?

Let me ask you another question. What percentage of meat consumed in the US is bought over the meat counter? I don't have the time nor energy to find this out but I guarantee you it is less than 50%. The large majority of meat consumed in the US is in the food service industry. Fast food, restaurant, cafeterias and so on. Is this meat required to be labeled for COOL? NO!!! So they can use any meat they want and have no COOL requirements at all. Again I ask you people, how does this make our meat supply safer? It doesn't.

Everybody here knows my problem with NAIS. They tell us NAIS will stop a disease. I've made my sticking point on this all along, an ear tag never stopped a disease and this is true. The same thing goes here. How does a law that exempts the biggest source of protein in the American's diet and exempts the largest area of consumption of meat in the American diet, make the food supply in the US safer? It doesn't. It just cripples the industries they are requiring to do it. This whole COOL argument is based on making the food supply safer which it doesn't. I will add, just because meat is from the US, doesn't automatically make it safer. It can still get contaminated at the slaughter plant with e-coli or other things so a US label in and of itself does not make the food supply safer. People are operating under a false assumption here.

I will again say at this point, the American consumer has the right to know this information. As long as this information is available at all levels on all products I will remove my reluctance from my support for COOL. This requires a change in the law which I have not heard anything about. All the arguments going on is about the beef industry doing this and how good, or bad it is. I even note that the Government has opened the rule making for COOL up again, comments can be left here (I never could get this site to work with Firefox, only internet explorer). This won't change the law. Only Congress can do that. All we can do is comment on the rule making for the law and maybe the record keeping requirements for it.

When it comes to record keeping for COOL I have a question. Why is it that US producers are going to be burdened with all the paperwork for COOL and imports are not? Since this is the US why not require all meat coming over our borders be permanently marked as foreign and if it doesn't have this mark, assume it is US. No costly paperwork requirements and little to no cost to consumers at the end of the supply line. Instead of there being a 20 cent difference in my example of earlier, there would be at most 1 or 2 cent price difference in the price of the US product and the non US product. Then I can see consumers buying US Beef willingly. The way it is now, it's only going to hurt me and consumers.

I hope I have explained my stance on COOL succinctly. In brief, it will not help the beef industry, will cost the consumer more and will not perform its primary function of making our meat supply safer, but is the right thing to do. How's that for screwed up?

Knowledge is power. Francis Bacon

You might remember that I commented the other day on the results of the Beef Checkoff survey. Now I see something that proves some people are out of touch with producers.

It appears the Montana Stock Growers Association (MSGA) thinks that the Beef Checkoff fee should be raised to $2 dollars from it's existing $1 fee. They give themselves an out by claiming that producers should vote on it, but the vote itself tells how they feel. You will remember that in the survey I mentioned above, 91% of respondents felt the one dollar fee was more than enough to pay. Ninety one percent. That's an extremely large number. It just shows you how out of touch with the common producer the MSGA is.

Let me extend this a little. The MSGA is the Montana affiliate of the NCBA. The Beef Board, who controls the money raised by the Checkoff fee, is controlled by the NCBA, at least that is the perception. So, is it any surprise the MSGA wants the Checkoff fee raised? It will only help the NCBA and the Beef Board raise more money.

This survey and the vote by the MSGA just show how out of touch these organizations that claim they represent cattle producers are with the average producer out there. I just have to laugh at the whole situation. If you ask me the MSGA really embarrassed themselves here.

I am generally way out of touch with trends, except now and then I am surprised to find myself leading one, like sympathetic vampires. Fred Saberhagen

Colorado Blizzard Could Top ’97 Storm’s Livestock Death Toll

Colorado Agriculture Commissioner Don Ament told Meatingplace today that he expects a Dec. 28 blizzard that hit the Rocky Mountain state will be a crueler killer than a 1997 storm that claimed 30,000 heads of livestock in the same region.

Ament said the storm would likely kill at least 40,000 head of livestock in southeastern Colorado, an area home to more than 300,000 farm animals.

Now I understand that these numbers are guesses at this point but it is looking grim. I feel for these people and I hear another storm is moving into the area, not much more snow but more wind. With all the snow they have more wind is just more drifts and more problems.

The NCBA is requesting Federal assistance. Federal assistance is always low-interest emergency loans which I have never figured out how that helps but what do I know. The NCBA is doing more though which I support.

Joining forces with state cattlemen’s associations across the country, NCBA is providing needed assistance through the National Cattlemen’s Foundation (NCF), with every dollar collected directly assisting families impacted by the winter storms.

Credit card contributions can be made by calling 1-866-BEEF-USA (1-866-233-3872) with Visa, MasterCard and American Express accepted. Online contributions can be made by going to www.nationalcattlemensfoundation.org and clicking on “make a contribution.”

For those wanting to send a contribution by check, checks should be made payable to National Cattlemen’s Foundation with “disaster relief” included on the memo line. Checks can be mailed to:

National Cattlemen’s Foundation
9110 East Nichols Ave., Suite 300
Centennial, CO 80112

In addition to cash contributions, the NCBA is also looking for those able to donate hay, trucking services or equipment.

So anybody interested in helping farmers and ranchers during this disaster now has a way. They need the help. I can't begin to describe what these people are going through. I've fought snow, blizzards, wind and dying cattle and I lack the finesse with words to describe it. You fight your way to your cattle and find them dropping like flies and you are doing every thing you can you fell so inadequate and feeble it isn't even funny.

We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone. Ronald Reagan

Jolley: The Checkoff – Two Decades Of Sleeping At The Financial Switch

Beef industry leaders met in Kansas City this summer to take a fresh look at the Beef Checkoff program. The 17-member industry-wide Beef Checkoff Task Force established their mission this way: “to review, study and recommend enhancements to the Beef Act and Order for the purpose of strengthening the Checkoff for the common good of the beef industry.”

Noble charge.

One of the four points that came out of their meetings immediately stirred controversy. Although the decision to suggest an adjustment in the checkoff rate was long overdue, the size of their request was like a captive bolt to the forehead of an unsuspecting industry. Staggering to cattlemen everywhere.

The raising of the checkoff fee is very controversial to a lot of people. There are many cattle producers who disagree with the checkoff the way it is let alone if they raise the levy. The way I understand it the producers have to vote on this idea to raise the checkoff. I'm waiting for the vote so I can vote against it. How the vote will turn out I don't know. The northern states tend to oppose it more than the southern states who tend to like it. Since the producers in the south tend to be smaller than northern producers they tend to carry the day.

Of course the NCBA likes the idea and R-CALF hates the idea. I think the industry leaders are being a bunch of Lemmings. Yes Lemmings. Australia just implemented a raise in the Checkoff rate so they think we in the US need to do the same. This is the same logic the industry is using on NAIS, Australia has it so we need to.

I think we need leaders in our industry, not Lemmings that always want to do what the Australian community is doing. American cattle producers know what they are doing and raise some of the finest beef in the world. Why do we need to copy Australia? We don't, that's what our industry needs to think about and quit following Australia's example. I am not saying Australia is wrong for themselves, just that we don't need to follow them. Make our own way.

To Follow by faith alone is to follow blindly. Benjamin Franklin

NCBA: Cattlemen Favor Ban On Japanese Beef, Additional Sanctions

In action taken today, the Executive Committee of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) voted unanimously to support retaliatory measures hinging on the immediate resumption of beef trade with Japan.

The NCBA Executive Committee voted to support legislation instructing the Bush Administration to institute agricultural and non-agricultural sanctions against Japan if beef trade is not immediately resumed. The resolution was offered by Bill Zimmerman, a cattleman from Foley, Minn., who serves as NCBA Region III vice president. The committee also voted in unanimous support of S. 3364, introduced by U.S. Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) on June 5, 2006. Nelson’s legislation would ban importation of any beef from Japan into the United States until Japan reopens its border to U.S. beef. The resolution supporting S. 3364 was introduced by Eden, Idaho, cattleman Cevin Jones, NCBA Region V vice president.

Usually the NCBA is very conciliatory and doesn't take a stand like this. I find this very surprising. The big meat packers must really be getting upset with Japan to have their US mouthpiece fire this shot at them.

Don't get me wrong, banning Japanese beef from the US means nothing since very little Japanese beef is imported the way it is but the part that states, "and non-agricultural sanctions against Japan" is kind of a big deal. The NCBA is advocating a trade war with Japan. They've grown an awful big set here recently.

With the Big meat packers sending such a loud message to Japan, maybe they will finally open up their border to US beef and let the consumer's of Japan decide.

Life hits you. It's tough. But you heal yourself. Doris Roberts

Some real interesting news about National Animal Identification System (NAIS) over at my other site. Go check it out if you want to see how the NCBA is just jumping on the bandwagon I advocated months ago. It's interesting.

A story to me means a plot where there is some surprise. Because that is how life is-full of surprises. Isaac Bashevis Singer

I think Mike John, President of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), really needs to get a clue about what cattle producers want.

Livestock National ID Sign-ups S-l-u-g-g-i-s-h

The president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association says in states where premises identification is not mandatory, enrollment has been painfully slow in establishing what will eventually become a national age, process and source verification system.

This, despite the fact many producers may already have the information needed for animal certification. "A very small percentage of producers have actually received a premises number," says 2006 NCBA President Mike John. "I don't know why that is. Every state has access to a Web-based premises allocation system. If people are worried about the government having access to that information, it already does."

If Premise Identification enrollment has been slow, maybe there is a reason for it. Like people think it's an unreasonable Government intrusion into their business. Of course in states where it's mandatory it's going well according to Mike John. Yea, you take a large stick and beat producers over the head and tell them they have to enroll in this "voluntary" program administered by the Meat Packers, through the US Animal Identification Organization, or they will be fined and wonder why enrollment is going well.

Mike John just doesn't get that he is a shill for the Meat Packers and is not working for the best interests of the Cattle Industry. I plan on being in the cattle business and I will wait until the USDA/NCBA/Meat Packers (they are all one outfit) forces me to get mine through law and do it under coercion. It's wrong and everybody knows it but whether we can turn this train or not is still in question.

Force always attracts men of low morality. Albert Einstein

Cross Posted to No Mandatory Animal ID

R-Calf's new leader needs to take a long walk off a short pier.

R-CALF's new leader wants to expand group

The new leader of R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America wants to change perceptions of the group that some in the cattle industry describe as protectionist or out of the mainstream, because of R-CALF's stance on trade issues.

Chuck Kiker is from mainstream cattle country _ Texas. And, as R-CALF's new president, the cattle and rice producer not only wants to expand the size and appeal of the group, perhaps best known for its fight over cattle and beef trade with Canada, but also make clear R-CALF's agenda.

If successful, Kiker said, this could mean an eventual move from R-CALF's home base in Billings to a larger city such as Dallas or Denver, places he finds more central.

So, according to Chuck Kiker Montana is not "mainstream cattle country" and Billings just isn't "central" enough to suit his taste. Well, stick it up your *** Chuck. R-CALF was born and bred here in Montana and should stay in Montana.

I agree the group is seen as protectionist by many and that sometimes clouds the other issues they fight for, moving the base of operations is not the right answer. Move to Denver and you seem to be schmoozing up to the NCBA/big meat packers and move to Dallas Texas and you seem to be schmoozing up to the Texas Cattle Feeders/NCBA/big meat packers.

All these organizations are opposed to to most everything R-CALF stands for, a productive ranch economy that provides nutritious and safe beef to the people of the United States. By staying in Billings they would be staking out their ground as different from the other organizations but Kiker doesn't want that. Maybe he just needs to go join the NCBA/big meat packers and be done with R-CALF. Save a fight down the road when he wants to start schmoozing up to them and he needs deposed.

A traitor is everyone who does not agree with me. George III

A private group has been formed to oversee the National Animal Identification System. The United States Animal Identification Organization held their first meeting via teleconference this week, where the board's first three members were elected.

One leader of the organization is NCBA member Rick Stott of Boise, Idaho. He says the group is a non-profit, independent organization with just one purpose: to provide an industry controlled entity to manage the National Animal Identification movement database.

With the way I see NCBA/meat packers manipulating the whole NAIS I don't feel at all good about this "Private group" being formed. I am sure it's packed with people who are towing the line to the meatpackers/NCBA/USDA line of bull we are being fed. Just another group to keep an eye on.

There is a danger that the freedom to transform everything embraces the freedom to transform our own nature and even to destroy that very freedom itself. Leon Kass

The Montana Stockgrowers, a branch of the National Cattlmans Beef Association (NCBA) which is lead by the meat packers and big feeders and not the cattle prodsucers, keeps wondering why they are losing members. Look at this list of issues the Montana Cattlemans Association, an affiliate of R-CALF USA, just voted on for approval.

The extensive list of resolutions passed by MCA members sets an aggressive path for the association and challenges the status quo of many issues facing live cattle producers. Following are the highlights of the resolutions passed:

~ Eminent Domain: MCA opposes the use of "eminent domain" to condemn private property for the sole purpose of economic gain or development for individuals and/or corporations.

~ Split Estate Rights - Coal Bed Methane: MCA urges the State of Montana to adopt public policies that: 1) protect the rights of farm and ranch families who do not own mineral rights and are facing the prospect of oil, gas and/or coal bed methane development on their land by ensuring they are given adequate notice of proposed oil and gas leasing and development and are given ample opportunity to negotiate surface damage agreements; 2) require adequate bonding and reclamation of oil, gas and coal bed methane operations that will leave disturbed land in as good or better ecological conditions than prior to entry of infrastructure; 3) ensure there is beneficial use of ground and surface water resources beyond oil, gas and coal bed methane development.

~ Gray Wolf: MCA requests the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service immediately initiate a process to notify all counties and livestock producers of the location and movement of gray wolves and provide a 24-hour contact number. It was further resolved to request the agency aggressively follow the direction of SB461, an act which requires the attachment of radio-tracking collars to at least one gray wolf in each pack. MCA acknowledges that gray wolves are a predator species in need of management in Montana and requests that Congress and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expedite the process to de-list the gray wolf and relegate management authority and provide full funding thereof to the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Montana Department of Livestock. MCA requests the Governor of Montana appoint a Board of Livestock Loss Reduction and Gray Wolf Damage Mitigation Committee to implement the program and be funded with federal monies.

~ Sage Grouse: MCA urges the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to shorten the Sage Grouse season to two weeks and a daily bag limit of one bird with a possession limit of two birds. MCA requests the agency to address the incompatibility of hunting a species that is under petition for listing as an endangered species.

~ Bison: MCA supports the establishment of a fair chase bison hunt in Montana, and supports hunting bison on lands adjacent to Yellowstone National Park to reduce the bison population, and advises the associated agencies to work diligently to keep infected bison out of Montana and to eradicate brucellosis from the Yellowstone National Park herd.

~ Elk: MCA encourages the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to issue a sufficient amount of hunting permits to reduce elk numbers.

~ Winter Feeding of Elk: Due to the spread of brucellosis among concentrated elk herds, MCA encourages the phasing out of winter feeding of elk to check the spread of the disease.

~ Wildlife: MCA requests the Governor of Montana to recommend legislation to enable the State to compensate landowners who make their living by harvesting the forage their land produces.

~ State/Federal Permit Buyout: MCA opposes any federal or state grazing allotment buyout program for non-livestock purposes.

~ State Participation in Grazing Permit Reviews: MCA requests the MT Department of Ag participates in reviews of grazing permits to provide equal representation for permit recipients.

~ Mandatory Animal I.D.: MCA opposes a mandatory national animal identification system for cattle.

~ Animal Health Traceback System: MCA supports working on standardizing a state/tribal controlled animal health traceback system protocol, but clearly opposes any system that fails to incorporate existing programs such as western brand laws and movement certificates.

~ Beef Checkoff: MCA encourages legislation that prohibits any anti-U.S. cattle groups from being a contracting agent for the federally mandated beef checkoff. Said groups include organizations that oppose trade investigations into trade practices that negatively affect U.S. cattle producers or oppose mandatory country of origin labeling, or that support liberalization of import standards below internationally practiced standards.

~ Beef Checkoff: In a separate resolution, MCA members voted to lead a nationwide effort to reform the mandatory beef checkoff to make the National Beef Act more responsive to grassroots family cattle producers. Members asserted this is not a movement to end the federal checkoff, but is an effort to improve it.

�MCA will work to implement all our policies, and provide a stable and profitable future for Montana cattle producers,� said DeBruycker. �MCA will also take any appropriate resolutions to our national affiliate R-CALF USA for their consideration on a national level.�

Producers voicing thier opinion of where they as an industry want to go. It's a very comprehnsive and aggresive agenda to persue. I am not sure i agree with everything on the list but I agree with over 90% of it. I can sure see why the Stockgrowers are losing out to the Cattleman's Association. I am glad to see this coming out. Things might be going in the right direction.

He who thinks and thinks for himself, will always have a claim to thanks; it is no matter whether it be right or wrong, so as it be explicit. If it is right, it will serve as a guide to direct; if wrong, as a beacon to warn. Jeremy Bentham

I normally don't link to opinion pieces but this one gets an exception.

The mark of the beast

The piece is about the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and the problems with it.

Everyone wants a safe, abundant and affordable food supply, which America has enjoyed for years � without a National Animal Identification System. Why is it necessary now? The increased terrorist threat certainly justifies tightening up security in the food chain. But the NAIS does little or nothing to tighten security, while imposing ridiculous burdens upon the small producer.

The NAIS was initiated by the National Institute of Animal Agriculture, a non-government organization consisting of the leaders of agribusiness. The program they designed tends to shift the burden, cost and ultimate responsibility for food safety from the agribusiness giants to the small producer.

The NAIS requires the small producer to not only bear the cost of the program, but also to be the ultimate scapegoat in the event that an agribusiness supplier's product is found to be faulty, for whatever reason. Should little Johnny get sick after eating a hamburger made with beef supplied by BigAgri Packing Company, BigAgri simply points the finger to the producer, or producers, whose cows were in the batch from which Johnny's hamburger was made. Agribusiness shifts its responsibility for buying only healthy product to the farmer, who must guarantee his animals to be healthy.

The NAIS is an industry-designed program which will drive small producers out of business, reduce competition and ultimately put both supply and price in the hands of industry giants � unless opponents of this program get organized.

I agree with all of this. It's a program designed to put the burden of the whole system on the producers and not the big companies. The National Cattleman's Beef Association (NCBA) and the USDA support this system and as I've reported and showed before the big meat packers control these two entities to do what they want, which is NAIS.

I have yet to meet a rancher that supports this and one of my neighbors is a big supporter of NCBA so you think he would, well guess what, he doesn't. People need to wake up on this one and start hitting their congressman and state representatives. This will hurt all Americans in the long run and not help anybody but the big business drive the small producers out.

I never worry about action, but only inaction. Winston Churchill