Evaluation of Producer Gains from Commodity Checkoff Programs:

Agricultural producers have invested over $750 million annually into self-financed " checkoff " programs primarily designed to increase demand for various commodities. Examples include generic promotion programs such as " got milk, " " another white meat, " and " beef's what's for dinner. " Advocates argue that these programs have been effective and important means for producers to collectively market their commodity. In contrast, some researchers challenge this traditional view. For example, Wohlgenant examined the distributional effects of commodity checkoff funds used for research versus promotion and concluded that research on farm production generates greater returns to producers than consumer promotion programs. This finding has drawn important policy implications for the allocation of checkoff funds and is of special significance to some producer groups (e.g., dairy, beef, and pork) who have spent a large share of the checkoff funds on consumer promotion. The study argued, " one reason more resources are not allocated to research is that legislation, enabling spending of producer checkoff funds, is limited to promotion and certain research activities. For example, the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1986 limits research to 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. " Consequently,