Check Off, Or Check Out! –May 1986

It seems that’s the rallying cry of
agricultural commodity leaders these
days as referendums on various “self-
help” programs pop up like mushrooms
after a summer rain.

Last month (March), sheep producers
here in Iowa gave 71 per cent approval to
a statewide program that would deduct up
to two cents per pound of wool sold and
10 cents per head on lambs. A simple ma-
jority was needed for passage, 50 the
margin favoring the measure sounds
good. More impressive, in my opinion,
was the fact that only 741 ballots were cast
in this state alleged to have more than
10,000 producers. The big reaction to the
proposal, it would seem, was an over-
whelming yawn!

That indifferent attitude may fade this
summer, however, as another ASPC refer-
endum comes before the voters-along
with another proposed increase in the
deduction rate from four cents to six cents
per pound on shorn wool, and from the
current 20 cents to 30 cents per hun-
dredweight on unshorn lamb.

Some day, if producers ever sit down
and actually total up their check-off con-
tributions to various commodity groups,
it may fry their computer diodes! As a
percentage of gross sales, it is very small.
But as a percentage of net, it rapidly in-
creases in significance. After all, if your
operation barely broke even, or lost
money, as many around here did last year,
anything paid to check-offs is a burden
you probably can’t afford.

A neighbor lamented recently that there
seem to be nearly as many employed pro-
moting ag products as there are produc-
ing them, yet it is the producer who
generally pays the salary of both. “Worse
yet,” he added, “if things don’t change
soon, there will be more promoters than
consumers!”

The red meat industry has taken its
lumps recently, and it seems producers,
perhaps in desperation, have thrown their
usual skepticism to the wind in an effort
to regain lost markets.

The National Pork Producers and Na-
tional Cattlemen’S Associations have, for

example, gained congressional approval
for mandatory national check-offs recently
with provisions that could allow them to
become non-refundable in the future. All
of this check-off authority is rapidly ap-
proaching the status of a tax-which the
Constitution says only government has
the power to levy.
I’m neither a proponent or opponent of
commodity check-offs, though I did work
for passage of the recent one in Iowa. But
how do you measure their effectiveness?
It’s true that demand for food in general
is quite “inelastic” in economic terms. In
other words, the total amount a consumer
will spend on eating will not vary greatly
regardless of disposable income level-
50 why pressure the consumer with ad-
vertising to eat more red meat-or lamb
in particular?
The counter to that argument is that
while total food expenditure may vary lit-
tle, the mix of how those dollars are spent
may change greatly. The challenge
becomes how to convince Mr. and Ms.
consumer to buy $2.00 per pound leg of
lamb, or $4.00 per pound chops rather
than 49¢ per pound chicken or 39¢ per
pound dry beans.
Right now, dietary fads have turned
much of the red meat industry’s attention
to refuting claims that red meat will kill
you. And while it’s true everyone who has
ever eaten red meat has eventually died,
the same is true of those eating com-
peting products. Conversely, meat eaters
live to be 100 and beyond-as do some
vegetarians. So why dwell upon the ob-
vious. Seems to me every time we em-
phasize the nutritive value or health
aspects of red meat, we play up an issue
our competitors have created.
Perhaps I’m cynical, but I don’t believe
grocery shopping is an entirely rational
process any more than buying a piece of
furniture, a new dress, a pickup truck, or
a pack of cigarettes! We consider first
what we would like to have, then ra-
tionalize to justify our choice.
After all, it’s tough to justify purchasing
a six pack of beer, a pack of cigarettes,
or a bottle of any leading soft drink-from
a health standpoint. Yet, far more soft
drinks than milk are consumed in this
country.
And despite the risks involved with
habitual use of some products, you won’t
see any of their manufacturers rushing to
publish nutri-facts, or for that matter even
muttering under their breath about any-
thing related to health.
No, they sell to our emotions-they go
for the gusto! They make the “less
filling-tastes great” controversy a per-
sonal experience, and subliminally make
you feel like even if you die from lung
cancer, it won’t be 50 bad because you’ll
ride tall in the saddle off to macho heaven.
If meat advertising is to regain us lost
ground, we’re going to have to quit con-
fusing people with facts (that often can be
refuted) and appeal to their emotions and
imagination.
The sheep themselves have shown us
that they’ll follow blindly based on instinct
and emotion, but try driving them, and
each meager step is a battle.
People are no different!

Originally published The Shepherd Magazine May 1986