Producer views sought for beef language white paper

Beef Central, 03/02/2015

Cattle Council of Australia has released its draft submission for the Beef Language White Paper review process.

The paper is now available for producer comment ahead of the February 16 submission deadline.

msa-grading-accCCA board member David Hill said he hoped that producers would take the opportunity to review the submission and make valuable comment, in order to shape the Cattle Council‘s representation.

“Producers have the opportunity to comment on the future of beef language, and ultimately, ensure that they get the best possible price for their product,” Mr Hill said.

“The submission focusses on key areas of discontent raised by beef producers, including dentition, butt shape and meat colour.

“From the review process, Cattle Council is seeking a progressive beef language that is transparent and based on objective measurements.

Mr Hill said that beef producers can also access a ‘Submission Guide’ on the Cattle Council website, which will assist those who wish to write their own individual submission for the White Paper process.

“The Beef Language Review is strict in stating that only submissions which directly respond to the terms of reference will be considered,” Mr Hill said. “Utilising the Submission Guide will help to ensure that these requirements are met.”

  • Beef industry stakeholders are reminded that they now have less than two weeks to lodge a submission as part of the Beef Language White Paper process. Click this earlier article on Beef Central for more details.  

To view CCA’s submission to the Beef language White Paper, visit:


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your comment will not appear until it has been moderated.
Contributions that contravene our Comments Policy will not be published.


  1. john carpenter, 06/02/2015

    You have been in the tent now 18 years,Mr Hill,which has been marked by failure after failure,totally unacceptable cattle prices,the lowest share of the beef retail dollar going to cattle producers,tolerance of a plethora of unfair processors discounts and the list goes on and on.Stay in the tent Mr Hill while the rest of us ignorant cattle producers move on.The support for the immediate implementation of all 7 of the Senate recommendations is overwhelming.Your organisation is unrepresentative,undemocratic and unaccountable and finished.

    While Beef Central welcomes open and vigorous debate via comments, given the current exchanges on this topic it is timely to ask readers to re-familiarise themselves with our ‘rules of engagement’, accessible via our “About Us” page, or click on this link: – Editor

  2. David Hill, 06/02/2015

    Unlike others, I will try to stick to the current topic. Mr Byard, this submission is not the work of an industry working group or committee that I am part of, the idea of making the draft public was to allow producers to comment on the direction or maybe offer some other ideas about changes people might like to see implemented in a reformed language!
    If I could reply to one comment? I would suggest, paid professionals are not always the best people to put a position to a wider industry group, this is a complex industry, it is at times a daunting prospect to get your head around some of the issues, but I can guarantee that no amount of money would allow you to find a paid professional that could adequately understand the frustration and hardship endured by a lot of beef producers in the recent past,
    all we are trying to do is get a language that actually recognises the true value of the product we produce and for producers to receive proper price signals and be paid accordingly, surely this would be a good place to start addressing the concerns of a lot of producers?

    While Beef Central welcomes open and vigorous debate via comments, given the current exchanges on this topic it is timely to ask readers to re-familiarise themselves with our ‘rules of engagement’, accessible via our “About Us” page, or click on this link: – Editor

  3. Mike Introvigne, 05/02/2015

    David Hill, you may have undertaken to work on the CCA submission voluntarily but please remember you don’t represent me or my business. In my view CCA is an unrepresentative group who have continuously failed our industry and you want to grandstand about how good you are having put in so much voluntary time. If we had a truly representative body, which I doubt you would be a representative, we would have paid staff to undertake such chores at the direction of a board who would be truly representative having been democratically elected by their peers. If we are serious about driving our industry forward we must wait for the the Minister’s ruling, formulate the new organisation, elect a board and then start redeveloping our future and all that goes with it. Please don’t think you can make decisions on my behalf as a board member of CCA because last time I checked I am not a member of CCA or its crony SFO’s.

  4. David Byard, 05/02/2015

    John Carpenter and David Hill makes some very interesting points on the white paper for meat language. Mr. Hill states that he has spent a lot of time on Cattle Councils submission which is voluntary. He actually hit the nail on the head when the producers are being represented by volunteers. It would seem that this is only one of 91 committees that CCA serves on. In a lot of cases these volunteers are opposed to other councils which have well paid professionals representing their interests. Surely the point is until producers can get well resourced professionals working for them they will always be at a disadvantage. Added to the fact Aus-Meats is jointly owned by processors and MLA you don’t need to be a road scholar to work out where their loyalties lie. John Carpenter obviously a man who is passionate about his industry and makes some very telling points as to why we must have change. The Senate as an independent body after months of deliberations has made seven recommendatiions which has promted the chairman of the Senate committee to come out and call for action. Surely all producers should support the findings of the senate who identified the sort of problems that we are finding with Aus-Meats and a multitude of other problems that are costing individual producers vast amounts of money.

    While Beef Central welcomes open and vigorous debate via comments, given the current exchanges on this topic it is timely to ask readers to re-familiarise themselves with our ‘rules of engagement’, accessible via our “About Us” page, or click on this link: – Editor

  5. David Hill, 05/02/2015

    John, I have in no way misunderstood your comments, it seems you might be miss-informed as well as ignorant, this scam white paper as you call it, was instigated by people who are part of the CCA structure, we have an opportunity to modernize the way our product is described and marketed, I for one would like to see the use of ciphers such as YG,YP,PR,A and S removed from the language as soon as possible, I believe producers should be paid on a basis that has some relevance to what is required by the modern consumer, which is consistent quality that maintains value for money, it has been shown that producers will pay more for quality, if producers are paid on the quality of their product as well as an objectively measured saleable meat yield, and not the present AusMeat description, discounting system, would we not agree that this would be an improvement? for the record, I read your Senate submission at the time, I also reread it last night, if I understood it properly, you are proposing we get rid of everything? I am not sure what you are proposing we replace the industry systems you would remove with? For a start I would suggest you get an informed opinion on what LPA actually means to this industry as far as market access goes! I don’t agree that getting rid of everything is a legitimate solution to the recent crisis of farm gate returns. As far as my duty of care goes, I supply into the same market that most producers do, I am not likely to become the owner of a processing plant or a non-packer exporter anytime soon, which I might add is not always ‘Beer and Skittles’, so I would rather be in the tent mounting an effective argument for change rather than outside kicking my lip.
    As to your comment about the CCA submission being pathetic and amateurish, why not submit your reasoning to CCA rather than relying on the whim of Beef Central, after all there was no statement made that CCA only wanted supportive views.

  6. john carpenter, 05/02/2015

    Mr. Hill you have misunderstood me.My comments are not a “glowing endorsement”,far from it,they are a criticism of,one,this scam white paper presided over by the processors as judge and jury and,two,the CCA’s participation in this process before the outcome of the grass fed restructuring has been made public by the Minister.If you have wasted your time,voluntary or otherwise,it is of no consequence.What is relevant is that you are prejudicing the interests of cattle producers to whom you owe some duty of care.Know this,I will not be a lackey for the processors and unlike the CCA will not be submitting to this wholly illegitimate white paper.However if you are interested in solutions then read my submission to the Senate Inquiry (number 5) which you will find substantially more thought provoking than the CCA’s submission.If you and other readers would like me to explain in detail why your submission to this illegitimate white paper is pathetic and indeed amateurish I will be happy to do so with the editors indulgence.

  7. David Hill, 04/02/2015

    John,thanks for the glowing endorsement, I have obviously wasted the(voluntary) time I put into helping with the CCA submission, I guess we can look for some more obvious ways of improving farm gate returns, when you enlighten us with your SOLUTIONS? I put it to you that if you don’t think the areas that are identified as needing change in the CCA submission are not relevant, then you have the opportunity to put forward your opposing views, as far as your comments ‘that this another attempt by the greedy processors to extend their control over what they pay to cattle producers’ and the reply to the earlier story from last year ‘that the genesis for this white paper was “BUTTGATE” I am not sure you have a lot of credibility when you refer to others people efforts as pathetic, the fact that we have had to address the fact that AusMeat grading allows the use of a worthless, subjective, so-called measure of yield as Butt Shape in CCA’s submission, is something that I consider to be embarrassing. It is my understanding that submissions should be limited to 5 pages to outline your proposals for change, this can then be supported by further DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, I look forward to seeing your putting your submission up for wider scrutiny.

  8. john carpenter, 04/02/2015

    If anyone is in any doubt that all 7 recs of the Senate Inquiry should be implemented then just read the CCA’s pathetic “draft” submission to the Beef Language review.Firstly this sham review has been improperly glorified by the title of “white paper”yet it has no support or authorisation of any government.White Papers are produced by governments on major policy issues and the use of this term in any other context is misleading and deceptive.Secondly any review into anything that could further impinge on cattle producer returns should be put on hold until the Minister makes a final decision on the Senate Recommendations.This review of the language has no legitimacy at all and should be boycotted and denounced as another attempt by the greedy processors to extend their control over what they pay to cattle producers.

    While Beef Central welcomes open and vigorous debate via comments, given the current exchanges on this topic it is timely to ask readers to re-familiarise themselves with our ‘rules of engagement’, accessible via our “About Us” page, or click on this link: – Editor

Get Beef Central's news headlines emailed to you -