Classic example of feedlot vs. cowcalf

[littledoggie]

HT, cow/calf producers certainly don't have a voice now that check-off is refundable. Now we have many voices - WSGA, ABP, NFU, BIA, BIG, Wildrose......who do you suppose the gov't and their "experts" should listen to? Oh right, they don't have to listen to anybody because they have a cattle advisory committee with ALMA. All appointed people. And who are the people representing the cow/calf sector on this committee? Do they actually represent us? or their own interests?

[per]

How has whether they listen or not changed with refundable checkoff? As far as the Cow Calf Committee at ALMA I checked it out and it has a pretty representative group of CC folks on it. The Alberta Livestock Industry Development Fund, ABP, WSGA and 3 CC producers at large make over half of the committee.

[smcgrath76]

Devil's advocate here...
Is $3 going to make or break you? I
know the $2.79 we pay for tags is a PITA
that I kind of resent and that pennies
make dollars, but in the grand scheme of
things the $3 is pretty small potatoes.
Does the CC guy bear all the cost, you
bet, but there are ways to turn that to
advantage. We are all focused on cost,
but how many focus on adding value?
Spending $1 is ok if it generates $1.10.
Can you use the RFID to make your
management easier? Can we use it to
sort cattle better and target end
markets?
We are always at odds with
feeders/packers, etc. but we cannot add
value without these components working
together and vice versa. I think there
has to be some common ground there.
The $3 is a nice bit, but unless you
have 10,000 cows it is not a source of
income.
If we are concerned about cost, then why
do most of us not focus on the 200 days
that we feed cows, or the depreciation
expense on that same cow? While there
are many issues surrounding RFID that
are real the cost is not a real issue in
my mind, but a symptom of a larger
problem.

[Happytrails]

Good comments. The cost of ID tagging has never been my issue but rather the cost of scanning those tags, particularly at auction markets. Also the likelyhood of losing the present brand inspection and livestock tracking service provided by LIS in Alberta is a concern.
As far as the CC producer's voice with a refundable check-off I think it will be louder because we can speak with our $$.

[grassfarmer]

"The cost of ID tagging has never been my issue but rather the cost of scanning those tags, particularly at auction markets."
That's been my argument all along - and why I have tried to move resolutions with ABP to ensure the costs of the system are borne by Government not the auction marts. Compared to a multi million dollar disease outbreak this would be cheap insurance for the Government.
Sticking the head in the sand ala ABP and wishing it will go away is not the answer.

[littledoggie]

What better way to add value to a $3.00 tag then through the information that is attached to it? Costs flow from top down, why not value? Cow/calf producers need to somehow maintain ownership of their information. Traceability IS cheap insurance for gov't, while they still have BSE egg on their faces. I fear gov't having too much involvement in our industry, but at the same time see that traceability is insurance for us as well. BUT, since 90% of food safety issues occur at slaughter and beyond, it seems to me that traceability is on the wrong side of the packing plant.

In regards to check off - I thought the whole point of check off was so we could have a well funded voice. This is exactly what the guys up the chain from the c/c guy want. Fragmentation.

[Happytrails]

These last posts that refer to ID tag scanning being cheap insurance for the government make me wonder if things are a lot worse than I thought. In my simple little world the party with the most to lose in a cattle disease outbreak is the producer. I thought that was us. Or are we regressing to feudalism or marxism? I hope not, and if not the priority insurance needs are ours. Saying that the government needs us to scan ID tags for their insurance is a dumb way to support a bad idea. Our main insurance need is to not be regulated out of existence. HT

[grassfarmer]

Its based on the simple assumption that Government would compensate for loss as is always the case with compulsory slaughter. I think if there were 2 or 3 million cattle slaughtered in a disease outbreak the stoic cowboys at ABP would be out with the begging cap.

[Happytrails]

We could have been scanning ID tags for the last 50 years and prevented exactly nil cattle culls. This scam has nothing to do with disease control and everything to do with power, control, and money. HT