State Beef Checkoff Funds Exciting New Research and Promotion Efforts By Hughes Abell, second vice president, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association
N A 1988 NATIONAL REFERENDUM, beef producers all along the production chain approved
Hughes Abell, second vice president, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Associa- tion
a $1 per head checkoff at the point of sale for all transac- tions, including imported beef and beef products. The checkoff dollars were intended to fund research into beef safety and nutrition and fund the develop- ment of new marketable cuts of beef. The checkoff was also developed to promote these new
ISSUES POLICY I
products and the healthful aspects of beef in the diet, here and internationally. Since 1988, the beef checkoff has been used as it
was intended — wisely and effectively. A recent study revealed that each checkoff dollar invested returned about $11.20 to the industry. However, time and infl ation take a toll, and the $1
of 1988 equaled only 44 cents in 2014. Texas beef pro- ducers recognized the loss of purchasing power and saw an urgent need to develop a state beef checkoff to keep the momentum going. A state referendum was held in 2014 and the state
beef checkoff was approved by two-thirds of the vot- ers, making Texas one of 14 states with a state-funded beef checkoff. Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) was supportive of a state beef checkoff. In fact, telling the positive story of beef and of ranching is part of TSCRA’s 5-part strategic plan. Since that vote in 2014, the Texas Beef Council (TBC)
has been doing what checkoff-funded entities do — wisely spending the resources provided by beef producers. Today, the combination of the national and state
programs is progressing at what I would deem a re- markable rate.
102 The Cattleman August 2016
For example, I believe beef research is the foun-
dation of all checkoff-funded programs. In the last 8 years at the state level, prior to the implementation of the state checkoff, we averaged $25,801 for research. This is not a small amount, but in the research world, it’s just a drop in the bucket. When I saw the amount of our dollars budgeted by the TBC in fi scal year 2016, only 2 years into the state checkoff program, it got my attention — $750,000 available for beef quality, beef safety, nutrition and market research at the state and national levels. TBC defi nes research as, “Studies relative to the
effectiveness of market development and promotion efforts, studies relating to the nutritional value of beef and beef products, other related food science research and new product development.” This research provides the foundation of the promo-
tion and education messages that TBC’s team of quality professionals can take to the medical community. A good example of the application of this research is the MD Outreach program, which shows how favorably beef compares to other sources of protein. The goal of MD Outreach is to provide science-
based beef nutrition information to medical doctors to change their recommendations of limiting beef in their patients’ diets. Two award-winning sales representatives with ex-
perience in the pharmaceutical industry are calling on family doctors and internists who are diagnosing high- cholesterol patients and recommending that patients limit their beef consumption. These targeted doctors and internists are seeing more than 300 patients per month. So far, the MD Outreach materials have been well
received by the physicians and we have high hopes that more health professionals will follow suit and change their dietary recommendations to encourage patients to include beef in their diets.
thecattlemanmagazine.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124