Jolley: Five Minutes with the "Not Cool" Farm Bill

decrease font size  Resize text   increase font size       Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

Maybe I should subtitle this column "Forever With the Farm Bill." Five minutes just won't cut it for something so complicated and cumbersome that it seems to always be a bone of contention. It's supposed to be a five year plan but just as soon as we get past the six or seven years it takes to put it together, we're off and running on the next 'plan.'

Label Do you remember the old Soviet Union and the monotonous, repetitive five year plans which were supposed to generate great leaps forward? That kind of massive central planning could never work, of course. There were just too many variables. The results were always the same – great fanfare followed by an embarrassing stumble backwards. And another five year plan was soon re-issued.

After way too many false starts, Corporate USSR soon declared the international equivalent of a Chapter 11 and sold most of its assets in an  attempt to pay off its creditors. Those five year plans were so complicated and relied on to many 'fingers to the wind' best guesses that failure was about the only guaranteed outcome.

And now we come to the Farm Bill, which is a terrible misnomer since 'farm' is only a small part of it. It's a conglomerate of everything remotely associated with food, an illegitimate mind meld of a thing that guarantees only two things: (1) Interminable political wrangling which usually results in the two major parties arming themselves and confusing each other with talk about their rights according to the first and second amendments. And (2) that insincere posturing is followed by the key players standing back-to-back, taking twenty paces, turning and firing on one another.

Fortunately, both sides are terrible shots – they're much more adept at verbal salvos – so no physical damage is done. Unfortunately, none of them are any better at central planning than the haphazard members of the old politburo so no real political advantages are gained, either.

Now we have our next best guess of a two years-past-due bill which is likely to produce even more controversy after the fact than it did during the ridiculously long, poorly wrangled affair that it took to create it.

Here is what USDA had to say about it:

"The Agricultural Act of 2014 is important legislation that provides authorization for services and programs that impact every American and millions of people around the world. The new Farm Bill builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past five years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings for the taxpayer.

The new Farm Bill will allow USDA to continue record accomplishments on behalf of the American people, while providing new opportunity and creating jobs across rural America. It will enable USDA to further expand markets for agricultural products at home and abroad, strengthen conservation efforts, create new opportunities for local and regional food systems and grow the biobased economy. It will provide a dependable safety net for America's farmers, ranchers and growers. It will maintain important agricultural research, and ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Americans."

Probably more out of exhaustion than any real passion for the bill, the Senate adopted the Farm Bill conference report by a vote of 68-32 and the House adopted the report by a vote of 251-166. The House cut about $40 billion over the next 10 years, a strange political maneuver since the bill only covers the next five years. 

Farm programs suffered from a few unexpected hatchet strikes in the new bill, including the elimination of the direct payments subsidy. Those subsidies amount to a hefty $5 billion a year and are paid to farmers whether or not they grow crops. The new bill moves some of the money to government-subsidized crop insurance. Turning away from what many saw as program that subsidized farmers for not working into protection from natural disasters made sense to most lawmakers who were feeling pressure on the home front to do something about the government's often ill-advised use of tax dollars. 

MCOOL might be the real cow pie in the punch bowl, though. It is one of the most hotly contested, but rarely intelligently debated issues in the bill – one that could cause a disastrous trade war between all three of the North American trading partners. To be fair, it would be Mexico and Canada in one corner and the U.S. in the other. MCOOL is an animal ag related issue that could sprout long and ugly roots that would disrupt the flow of a lot of unrelated goods and services if it's allowed to stay in its current form. 

It has the potential of being a multi-billion dollar game changer in the usually warm trading relationship between the three countries. Here is what some of the key players are saying while they rattle their sabers: 

Scott George, President of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association:
"This mandatory label by the U.S. government has failed in every regard. It has caused costs to be put on the back of the producer, rancher or farmer like myself with no benefits."

 

Dave Warner, speaking for the National Pork Council:

"We had to ask for a fix.  Because it wasn't in the farm bill, we're going to ask for a full repeal."

 

Michael Martin, Cargill spokesman:
"(Faced with) the prospect of two billion dollars in retaliatory tariffs from America's NAFTA partners to the North and South, we believe Congress should revisit this issue."

 

John Masswhol, Director of Government & International Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association:
"I genuinely believed they were going to fix it. I think that makes the disappointment that much worse."

 

Gerry Ritz, Canadian Agricultural Minister:
"Our government continues to stand with our industry and we remain steadfast in taking whatever steps may be necessary, including retaliation, to achieve a fair resolution."

 

Barry Carpenter, Chief Executive Officer, North American Meat Association:

(We are) extremely concerned that Congress has refused to resolve these critical issues. Without these provisions, we are forced to aggressively oppose the Farm Bill. This failure to address COOL also makes it imperative that the U.S. government push the WTO to expedite the process in order to provide the certainty necessary for the industry to move forward."

 

Bill Bullard, Chief Executive Officer, R-CALF USA:

“Marketplace competition can no longer occur without COOL. In this global market, more imports from more countries are entering the U.S. each year and foreign meatpackers are trying to capture market share away from U.S. family farmers and ranchers. COOL allows U.S. cattle farmers and ranchers to highlight their product to U.S. consumers whom we believe will choose our exclusively U.S. produced product if they can identify it in the market. That’s what this fight is all about: farmer and ranchers want competition while the meatpackers and their allies want to control the market.” 


Prev 1 2 3 Next All



Buyers Guide

Doyle Equipment Manufacturing Co.
Doyle Equipment Manufacturing prides themselves as being “The King of the Rotary’s” with their Direct Drive Rotary Blend Systems. With numerous setup possibilities and sizes, ranging from a  more...
A.J. Sackett Sons & Company
Sackett Blend Towers feature the H.I.M, High Intensity Mixer, the next generation of blending and coating technology which supports Precision Fertilizer Blending®. Its unique design allows  more...
R&R Manufacturing Inc.
The R&R Minuteman Blend System is the original proven performer. Fast, precise blending with a compact foot print. Significantly lower horsepower requirement. Low inload height with large  more...
Junge Control Inc.
Junge Control Inc. creates state-of-the-art product blending and measuring solutions that allow you to totally maximize operating efficiency with amazing accuracy and repeatability, superior  more...
Yargus Manufacturing
The flagship blending system for the Layco product line is the fully automated Layco DW System™. The advanced technology of the Layco DW (Declining Weight) system results in a blending  more...
Yargus Manufacturing
The LAYCOTE™ Automated Coating System provides a new level of coating accuracy for a stand-alone coating system or for coating (impregnating) in an automated blending system. The unique  more...
John Deere
The DN345 Drawn Dry Spreader can carry more than 12 tons of fertilizer and 17.5 tons of lime. Designed to operate at field speeds up to 20 MPH with full loads and the G4 spreader uniformly  more...
Force Unlimited
The Pro-Force is a multi-purpose spreader with a wider apron and steeper sides. Our Pro-Force has the most aggressive 30” spinner on the market, and is capable of spreading higher rates of  more...
BBI Spreaders
MagnaSpread 2 & MagnaSpread 3 — With BBI’s patented multi-bin technology, these spreaders operate multiple hoppers guided by independent, variable-rate technology. These models are built on  more...


Comments (47) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Tom    
MT  |  February, 28, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Chuck J, Please don't be one sided in regards to COOL. As usual there are always two sides to each story. The reason COOL is in the farm bill is because the majority of the ranchers and consumers want COOL. The NCBA does not represent the majority of ranchers. Our beef export customers demand 100% U.S. beef, so it looks like the NCBA would have no problem segregating beef for the export market unless they want to call it product of North America or product of many nations.

chuck    
Kansas  |  February, 28, 2014 at 09:25 PM

One-sided? I quoted Bill Bullard and he is the most vociferous proponent of COOL. Let me say three things: (1) Your claim that the majority of ranchers and consumers want COOL hasn't been born out by any valid research I've seen. (2) In My opinion, COOL should live or die on its own. It should not be buried in the Farm Bill. The NCBA does represent a significant portion of American ranchers. Depending on how you want to shade the numbers, they do represent the majority.

Kenny    
North Dakota  |  March, 01, 2014 at 08:05 AM

Cool is working for us, the costed of the program are being absorb and the market is still going up. You lost we won get over it.

rancher01    
North America  |  March, 01, 2014 at 08:34 AM

No matter how I try I cannot get NCBA membership numbers to see if your claim as being the representative of the majority is true. AND the farm bill looks to really be a SNAP bill... no problem with that, it is sad of all the things in the farm bill that you choose to label poop in the punch bowl... you pick COOL. Seems your packer buddies have too much influence over your judgment. Look for a solution to make COOL efficient rather than keep screaming it is no good. Your punch bowl is half full of something all right...

Chuck    
Kansas  |  March, 01, 2014 at 11:08 AM

My 'packer buddies' don't have any influence over my judgment, sorry. But your note seems to back up my statement that COOL is one of the most hotly contested but rarely intelligently debated issues. 'Poop in the punchbowl' should be viewed as one of the parts of the bill that will cause people to pause. SNAP is another. The bill will be intensely debated one way or another until the next bill is assembled 5 or 6 or 7 years from now.

Chuck    
Kansas  |  March, 01, 2014 at 11:10 AM

One of the problems you'll run into when trying to determine which organization is the 'biggest' is whether or not you want to look at total number of ranchers, size of ranches, etc. There are too many ways to cut the pie to really get a solid handle on that question.

rancher01    
North America  |  March, 01, 2014 at 12:28 PM

When you write "The NCBA does represent a significant portion of American ranchers. Depending on how you want to shade the numbers, they do represent the majority." and then you seem to back pedal in your last post... which is it? And I see we are back to the pie analogy. And I stand on of all the things we should be upset over in the farm bill... it is COOL that you choose as the bad apple in the pie. The never ending public perception that farmers stand with their hands out for their checks to come in the mail while the vast majority of the "farm" bill is for food assistance and lots and lots of job creation... for those who need tax money to fund their employment. We go round and round...

Kenny    
North Dakota  |  March, 01, 2014 at 01:00 PM

Chuck NCBA was the only ag group pushing to repeal COOL. Every other ag group, including AMFB, NFUO, R-CALF, and USCA didn't try to repeal it. That alone shows the number of producers in favor.

Jay    
Arizona  |  March, 01, 2014 at 01:33 PM

Scorecard: 6 quoted individuals against MCOOL, 1 in favor. That's rather one-sided. You lament a lack of "intelligent debate" yet your sole criticism is that MCOOL "could cause a disastrous trade war..." Really? The U.S. ran a $31.7 billion trade deficit with Canada in 2013 and a $54.3 billion deficit with Mexico. Do you honestly believe those two nations are ready to embark on a trade war with the U.S. over MCOOL? Qui bono?Mere saber rattling. Lastly, your assertion that NCBA represents a "significant portion of American ranchers" with your next sentence that regardless of how numbers are shaded "they do represent the majority" is simply not the intelligent debate you ostensibly seek. Please share your numbers--however you wish to shade them--which would support your contention that a majority of ranchers are represented by NCBA.

Tom    
MT  |  March, 01, 2014 at 02:04 PM

Chuck, Do you realize that 83% of the NCBA's operating budget comes from our Beef Checkoff? Do you think the NCBA would be able to operate without the Checkoff?

Rob    
Nebraska  |  March, 01, 2014 at 07:48 PM

I believe that the last figures I saw quoted was that NCBA represented between 14 -17% of beef producers. Hmmm. far from a majority no matter how you skew the data. Beef producers will never get honest representation as long as the organization claiming to have their best interests in mind allows seats on the board to bought by those that they must do business with. Oh and Chuck I am sure that if your pen took a different slant you would soon be out of your current job. After all one shouldn't expect to bite the hand that feeds it without getting slapped.

Chuck    
Kansas  |  March, 01, 2014 at 09:55 PM

Rob, Your last sentence is a cheap shot and based on nothing but your uninformed opinion. I'm wondering what had feeds you? Jay, if you read tohecomments from the Caadians, you could 'assume' Masswohl and Ritz are bluffing but there isn't much there to support your assumption. And you should stop trying to 'shade' my response to support your suposition.

Chuck    
Kansas  |  March, 01, 2014 at 10:06 PM

By the way, the NCBA web site says they represent "more than 230,000 cattle breeders, producers and feeders.' R-CALF's web site says they represented 12,000 in 2007 but the page hasn't been updated since 2011 so current numbers aren't available. I doubt that they've caught up to NCBA's numbers, though.

Jay    
Arizona  |  March, 01, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Chuck, I've assumed nothing, merely looked at the trade deficit numbers which tell all. You ask for intelligent debate but offer none. Please intelligently explain how Canada and Mexico can run a trade war with us given i) we are their primary trade partner and ii) they run significant trade surpluses with us. Again, qui bono? How can either of the aforementioned countries engage in a trade war which could jeopardize the trade surplus with their primary trade partner? I haven't shaded your response. You raise the issue of a trade war and I ask how Canada and Mexico can risk the same given the trade numbers. You avoid the issue. You similarly fail to provide any data to support your assertion that NCBA represents a "majority" of ranchers. In short, you call for intelligent debate but never provide numbers or data to support your apologetics.

Jay    
Arizona  |  March, 01, 2014 at 10:19 PM

Chuck, can you do no better than to recite NCBA's assertion that it represents "more than 230,000 cattle breeders, producers and feeders"? Do you have any idea where that number comes from? NCBA counts the members in affiliate state groups, breed associations, etc., even though most the members in the affiliates and associations do not belong to NCBA. A Texas Cattle Feeders Association member is counted by NCBA even when that member is not a member of NCBA. It's like Farm Bureau counting its insurance numbers when telling us how many producers it represents. The only number that is meaningful is the number of dues paying members and NCBA doesn't make that number available.

Dave    
Nebraska  |  March, 02, 2014 at 08:52 AM

In 1994 National Cattlemen had 40 thousand dues paying members today NCBA has about 26 thousand dues paying members. Watch this video and get yourself educated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugMHu30jDWI&feature=youtu.be

Jay    
Az  |  March, 02, 2014 at 09:28 AM

Dave, Thanks for posting the video link--most interesting.

Dave    
Nebraska  |  March, 02, 2014 at 09:30 AM

Chuck, why is it OK for you to distinguish your product and service in the global and domestic economy but American cattlemen cannot? I believe that every American producer (everyone who produces anything) works hard to provide this country with the best and safest product they can. Why would anyone want to deprive the producers (all people who produce something) of the opportunity to capitalize on the fruits of their labor? Not being allowed to distinguish your product in the market place is simply another form of indentured slavery.

Dave    
Nebraska  |  March, 02, 2014 at 09:47 AM

Chuck, you said “ I my opinion, COOL should live or die on its own. It should not be buried in the Farm Bill.” That is actually how the checkoff was passed in 1985, it to was buried in the Farm Bill. The vote for a checkoff failed twice before it got slipped in to the Farm Bill. Would you make the same statement about the checkoff? Lets see if it will live or die by making it volunitary.

Jay    
AZ  |  March, 02, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Chuck, Dave's point is well taken. Have you ever been into a grocery store in Europe? I have. In the UK, everything is labeled as to country of origin--all vegetables, dairy products, and meat. The meat counters have Union Jack banners with statements that all meat products are "British." I have visited the meat counters in the major grocery stores in Leeds, the UK's 3rd largest metropolitan area, and never once saw non-British meat. The only exception would be packaged bacon from Denmark. Leeds is in Yorkshire and milk goes one step further: it is labeled as a Yorkshire product. Cereals have a seal stating that the ingredient grain is British. Europe distinguishes as to country of origin. Are they simply all about increased costs--which you attribute to MCOOL--or is there possibly another reason for their labeling?

Dave    
Nebraska  |  March, 02, 2014 at 01:14 PM

Sorry to break off the discussion Chuck, but I had to attend Mass. That brings up an interesting thought, what if the government said that we could no longer distinguish the church we chose to attend, what if we were only allowed to say is we attend CHURCH. I would bet that the public would rise up and demand that the citizens were allowed to know which church they were attending. Oh and by the way I would also bet that if you asked them if they are willing to pay more for this information, to know which church they are attending, they will tell you it is none of your business.

Dave    
Nebraska  |  March, 02, 2014 at 01:15 PM

Chuck, you earn your living by selling advertizing on you website and your publication. Why don’t you tell your advertisers they can no longer put the names of the company on their ads. They can only advertize the generic product. Your income would dry up quickly. Instead you want your advertisers to distinguish them selves and you what to make sure that your readers can CLEARLY distinguish your advertiser from the rest of the products being sold in the market place. Chuck you are in the unique position to help serve all producers and profit handsomely from it. Or you can chose to carry the agenda for the few and hope you are not discard in the end. The choice is yours

MikeS.    
Kansas  |  March, 02, 2014 at 02:17 PM

NCBA and AMI have had defeat without question. Go to these links: First U.S. District Court Judge Jacksons ruling at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi- bin/show_public?doc?2013cv1033-48 and the link on the court challenge at www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings.nsf/ the case number is 13-5281 for January 9th,2014. All you have to do is listen to the debate and the truth is pretty evident. When NCBA is worried about the "2.1 Billion in Exports" and we are concerned about the 85 BILLION in USA market value in 2012 according to USDA, who would you care to support! CASE CLOSED NCBA / AMI LOSE Big time!!

MikeS.    
Kansas  |  March, 02, 2014 at 02:23 PM

I forgot one BIG lie that has been told: What about the NCBA lie "Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling caused "STEEP DISCOUNTS TO OUR PRODUCERS AND PREJUDICES AGAINST OUR LARGEST TRADING PARTNERS". Show me the discounts in the last 12 months? I would agree that if you have captive supplies and are a captive feeder for a packer, you may be getting steep discounts but for those of us who buy and sell in auctions the prices have never been better for producers. It is too bad these issues don't make the front page of the packer puppet papers!

maxine    
SD  |  March, 02, 2014 at 05:52 PM

Many consumer focus groups have shown time and time again over many years, that consumers want to know FARM/RANCH of origin, not simply country. R-CALF and other COOL proponents DID NOT ALLOW the most desired information, farm or ranch of origin, to be included in the law. FACT: there are MANY beef brands labelled as to country of origin available in grocery stores all over the country. A few: Laura's Lean, Ranchers Reserve, Harris Ranch, and many, many more. The GOVERNMENT did NOT have to do it, Private Enterprise promoting ranchers and grocers DID IT! There is NO better way to provide what consumers want than that. FACT: All contracts for Beef Checkoff projects are on a cost recovery only basis, no profit allowed. There IS separation of Dues/Policy Division and Federation of State Beef Councils Divisions of NCBA. Both financially, and in voting.

Dave    
Nebraska  |  March, 02, 2014 at 08:35 PM

Maxine, I was wandering when you were going to join in. It seem to me the Beef Checkoff was deemed by the Supreme Court to be GOVERNMENT SPEECH, so much for letting the market decide. It looks like COOL could be deemed as government speech as well. I would think that all labeling put in place by the government could be considered government speech. As for the checkoff and NCBA, 99% the federation directors are NCBA dues paying members. The 10 federation members on the Operating Committee (the committee that decides who win the contracts) are NCBA dues paying members. The Implementation AR’s (Authorization Request or contract) and sub-contractors are not cost recovery. When the state beef councils send $10 million to NCBA/Federation this is not cost recovery and NCBA can spend the $10 million however they see fit. And I don’t mean the Federation can spend the $10 million, because the Federation doesn’t have a check book I mean NCBA. The CEO and the CFO are the same indivuals for both the NCBA/Policy and NCBA/Federation. Further more 17 state beef councils are two hat states, which means they share their staff and facilities with the NCBA state affliate. Hang on Maxine it is going to get interesting. In 2009 NCBA over shot the bid for the Implementation AR for Consumer Information by 21% or $441541, in 2010 by 9% or $179,661, in 2011 by 20% or $393,562, in 2012 by 40% or $614,998. NCBA makes sure that the excess is used on other AR’s that they want to do. By over shooting the cost of the AR it allows NCBA to control the money while other contractors are budgeted out. So much for cost recovery. Maxine you do an excellent job of repeating NCBA’s talking points, but when it comes to the FACTS not so much.

joepa    
Nebraska  |  March, 03, 2014 at 03:47 AM

So in regards to who represents the most. The previous USDA census said there is 720000 beef producers. So take everybody's DUES PAYING members only and if anyone is a member of more then one they only have there name in one time. Only take the beef producer memberships as well. The NCBA, R-CALF, USCA, National Farmers Union, and American Farm Bureau would probably represent only half if that of those 720000. Which means the majority of producers chose NOT to be a member.

joepa    
Nebraska  |  March, 03, 2014 at 03:58 AM

In regard to the checkoff popularity. The NCBA did a survey of roughly 1200 producers it said that over 70% support the checkoff. Using the census number of 720000 producers, that means they surveyed .0017 percent of the producers..... I think it's safe to say that "survey" is bullsh*# If it is so popular then you who want it can give more then a $1 per head and support a generic product. There is no cap on how much per head you can give. To find out how popular it is make it voluntary and see how it does, oh wait that's right then your precious NCBA will go broke I am sorry. Hell I know let's have a referendum to see what producers want.

joepa    
Nebraska  |  March, 03, 2014 at 04:14 AM

Here is some more information to think about. The checkoff was suppose to increase demand and profitability. Before the checkoff the pounds of beef per capita was 70+ now it's 50+ that's a decrease!!! The number of ranchers, feeders, and packers has also dropped. It has FAILED! Those of you who will say it has increased exports well look at the numbers again. The USA cow herd is at its smallest since the 1940's and we haven't feed our own USA demand since the 1950's that shows us that we have a HUGE problem in our industry and it's getting worse because we are becoming like the chicken and pork industry. In regards to COOL fine end the program and the only thing the label can say is BEEF, CHICKEN, PORK, FISH, LAMB. Sorry packers none of your names on there. I would say even take the name of what cut it is off to but, then our checkoff wouldn't see the benefit of letting pork use beefs cut names. I mean that has to go down in the books as one of the greatest ideas ever to let your competitor use your names.

Craig A. Moore    
Billings, MT  |  March, 03, 2014 at 12:47 PM

As a customer and not a raiser of cattle, when do I get my say in this hoop de doo? I know where my shrimp come from, I know where my Fuji apples come from and I want to know where my meat comes from. Do any of you realize it is me that keeps you in business? Let's let it progress to where you actually put where the stuff comes from and see how I, the consumer accepts it. My guess is the NCBA would be upset because the ones labeled USA would do better in this country and they were fighting a right that the customer wanted.

Rob    
Nebraska  |  March, 03, 2014 at 09:20 PM

Craig thanks for jumping in. Well said. You are spot on.

Rob    
Nebraska  |  March, 03, 2014 at 09:20 PM

Craig thanks for jumping in. Well said. You are spot on.

LR    
March, 03, 2014 at 10:01 PM

How many names does Bill Bullard use to write these blogs. R-CALF and self named Independent Cattlemen are losing support and are desperate for attention. They do not like government intrusion in their operations yet they had politicians in Washington sneak the COOL legislation past the cattlemen's wish. Most of the people in Washington that worked on and signed the legislation had never hauled hay to a cow or saved a freezing newborn. R-CALF calls these allies!!!!

LR    
March, 03, 2014 at 10:13 PM

Figures(statistics) don't lie but they may be twisted beyond truth. One blogger commented on a statistical analysis indicating it not to be correct. If one had ever studied statistics they realize that statistics are drawn from representative sample not a vote on a given outcome. You could take any one of these blogs and find flaws in the numbers presented.

LR    
March, 03, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Kenny you forgot to list one of your best allies. The HSUS otherwise known as the Humane Society of the US. A very radical anti meat production group. R-CALF enlists the help of anyone that will help gain their place at the podium. Desperation is difficult to overcome.

joepa    
Nebraska  |  March, 04, 2014 at 08:35 AM

LR you imply that HSUS and R-CALF work together. This proves again that misinformation is what you have read and believe. I am sure that you are referring to the Mike Calicrate and OCM lawsuit that HSUS is helping on, well R-CALF USA has had nothing to do with nor are they participating in it and that is a FACT. Another thing in Nebraska the Nebraska Farmers Union formed a working group with HSUS they invited R-CALF and their state affiliate Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska (ICON) to be apart of the group they both said NO!!! Last proof that they haven't been working with HSUS. R- CALF went to the aid of one of the packers who was trying to start horse slaughter again. HSUS filed a lawsuit and R-CALF went to aid the packer and no I didn't stutter they aided the packer NOT HSUS. Oh one more thing this isn't Bill I am from North Central Nebraska my name is Joe.

Kenny    
North Dakota  |  March, 04, 2014 at 08:51 AM

LR get the facts straight it was OCM that worked with HSUS.

joepa    
Nebraska  |  March, 04, 2014 at 08:52 AM

LR I almost forgot. I support COOL because I haul hay and save calves and my cattle are ALL product of USA and I am dam proud of that! You must haul hay and save calves that are a product of North America. Support your country and the people who live and work in it and especially those who have payed the ultimate sacrifice for ALL of us.

Chase    
Virginia  |  March, 07, 2014 at 09:55 AM

You nailed it Craig, origin information has been on the label since 2009. For the past 4 1/2 to 5 years your beef has been labeled. And for the last 4 months its been labeled with born, raised and harvested origin. But beef demand has remained unchanged. What does that say when this program hasn't affected demand and consumers are unaware it exists? It says price and appearance are still driving the cart. That's not just a guess.

Chuck    
Kansas  |  March, 07, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Wow, I walk away from this for a few days and the comment section explodes! I think that supports my comment about COOL. I will stay with my statement that it should stand on its own, not be buried in the Farm Bill. I've always been against bill with a lot of attached outriders, especially those that don't have anything or very little to do with the bill. It allows legislators 'plausible deniability' when they're called out on their legislative actions during their next campaign. And let me restate emphatically for those small minds who have suggested that my comments are bought and paid for by advertisers. They are my own. Period. If you disagree with what I write, respond with facts and figures not ad hominem statements. If questioning my integrity is how you want to respond, kindly take it elsewhere until you have something intelligent to say.

michael    
kansas  |  March, 07, 2014 at 11:21 AM

A very immature comment and more than a little counting chickens before they hatch, as it has not been implemented yet, and Canada/Mexico have not yet decided how to punish US. Markets go up and go down, and you have no evidence of any kind that the current market has anything to do with COOL. "Program Costs" aren't being "absorbed" - yet. As to your snark, you sound very much like the Obama Administration regarding ObamaCare as "the law of the land", that they're now desperately delaying and modifying (on their own) due to the massive failure it's shown itself to be. Legislation can be passed and it can be repealed. That's the American way, komrade.

MikeS.    
Kansas  |  March, 07, 2014 at 01:28 PM

COOL without question has had more to do with the producers price than the Checkoff has! Let's see, the checkoff has been since?? and the COOL (even flawed by the packers and their puppets) since 2008 (truth is that it started in 1996, when I left the others who didn't report about the impact of imported cattle). Oh some probably weren't out of the packer college by then when fats were 58.00 and we were all told we had "OVERPRODUCED AND THERE WAS NO DEMAND"... Just another "little lie" hiding the cost of imports.. Sorry to burst your bubble to those who don't get it but history doesn't lie. What it does do is it repeats itself if left unchecked.

Craig A. Moore    
Billings, MT  |  March, 07, 2014 at 03:37 PM

You must shop in a different type of store than I do. At my stores it hasn't and it doesn't.

Yvonne    
USA  |  March, 08, 2014 at 05:39 AM

My clothes have ID tag for country production. Why would we not want to know where the food we eat was produced? What is there to be so afraid of NCBA?

Chuck    
Kansas  |  March, 08, 2014 at 03:37 PM

I have no idea what you're talking about. Would you clarify?

Yvonne    
USA  |  March, 09, 2014 at 09:57 AM

COOL!!!

Chuck    
Kansas  |  March, 14, 2014 at 02:18 AM

Yvonne, my question was directed to Craig.


Truck and Trailer Mounted Tenders

Doyle’s Tenders are available in 8’, 10’, 16’, and 24’ lengths and include truck or trailer mounted with side or ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Feedback Form