Perspective on trade

[cakadu]

There is an interesting book entitled "Change or Die" by Alan Deutschman (ISBN -10 0-06-088689-7). The book explains how when faced with the need to change, we rarely do, even though we have the ability to change. In fact, when faced with the need to change our behavior, there are 9 to 1 odds that we will NOT change.

The principles in the book can be applied to any facet of life and if we relate, repeat and reframe we can achieve positive change.

The change train has been bearing down on us for years in agriculture, yet it appears as though we steadfastly resist making the necessary changes to succeed.

What will it actually take to make us change?

[farmers_son]

I do not think it fair to compare personal change for example quitting smoking or going back to school so you can have a better job to change within an industry. Personal change may require psychological resources, but industrial change could easily involve financial resources that are beyond the means of the participants in the industry to meet.

Change is a very interesting subject and there is a lot written on it. One could easily make a career out of studying change.

Rather than phrase it as what I am afraid of it might be better to use the term cause and effect. If change is caused to happen what might be the effects of that change? If governments allowed BSE testing for marketing purposes what might the effect be. The packers, not “we” because “we” raise live cattle, might ship some beef to Japan and Asia. Emphasis on the might but it could happen. It might even slightly raise the price of our live cattle if you are very optimistic and believe the packers actually pass along profits to producers. Could anything else happen? Well we might loose the confidence of our domestic producers in the Canadian beef product. We could loose our live cattle access to the United States and as live cattle producers that would directly impact us. We could leave ourselves vulnerable to other non science based trade demands by Japan and other protectionist countries. And Japan might not buy as much of Canadian beef as people would like to think.

Our we could choose to change another way. We could age verify our beef and export the same amount of beef to Japan (or even more) without a BSE test with no potential of loosing our consumers confidence or access to other important export markets. On the balance of probabilities it seems to me that the age verifying is a change that offer more positive outcomes.

[cakadu]

Farmers_son, we could "what if" till the cows come home (no pun intended). The bottom line is that unless we try something different we will never know.

The book that I mention can apply to anything. Yes, industrial change will take more resources, but first and foremost there has to be the willingness to change. From what I gather in other posts, the ABP/CCA is unwilling to do things any differently, despite the fact that the very people they are supposed to be representing are asking for changes to be made.

Japan is a huge market that is willing to pay for what it gets. Yes, I do know that they are very particular about their products, but they are willing to pay to have their specifications met. Another market that we could tap into is the European market, if we were willing to dispense with the hormones.

Some of the potential solutions are right in front of us, yet what makes them so hard to achieve? Why are the producer organizations so reluctant to take the chance that they could work?

At first glance, there seems to be a whole lot more to be gained. What don't we know about or is the status quo the much preferred way?

Curious in the Country.

[farmers_son]

I agree that we could "what if" until the cows come home. The BSE testing discussion is a lot like a dog chasing its tail.

I would very much dispute that the people in the country are asking for the BSE testing for marketing purposes change. I went to our local ABP fall meeting and someone from out of the area did get up with a resolution for BSE testing but I think only the mover and seconder were in favour. Everyone else voted against it and there was a pretty good crowd.

What they are asking for is some relief from the financial pressure they are feeling and unfortunately there is no easy solution for that. Certainly BSE testing for marketing purposes is not the easy solution that those few producers are asking for.

[per]

Farmers_son if the Change of Die book is not at you library another book that might interest you is "Who Moved My Cheese?" by Spencer Johnson, MD. It takes a metaphorical look at the same subject and can be read in just a few hours. It is required reading in some boardrooms. I don't recall anyone saying that testing is the end all answer, just one more option for marketing our products. If you don't want to participate in the new environment we find ourselves in then please don't stand in the way of those that do.

[grassfarmer]

"farmers_son "What they are asking for is some relief from the financial pressure they are feeling and unfortunately there is no easy solution for that."
Easy solutions - maybe not but at least ABP could try. Instead you seem to be intent on benefiting everyone but primary beef producers.

Defeated resolutions at your AGM:

#5 ABP Conduct a study to determine a 2 – 5 year sustainability of beef producing farms. DEFEATED
#6 ABP lobby that beef importation be stopped. DEFEATED
#7 ABP lobby the provincial government for compensation for cow/calf producers for this year. DEFEATED
#10 ABP develop a cow/calf council with same standing as the cattle feeder council. DEFEATED
#13 Lobby to allow BSE testing. DEFEATED
#15 Lobby for ban on packer ownership. DEFEATED
#16 Ban packer ownership of fed cattle. DEFEATED

I won't even bother posting the slate of resolutions that called for changes in the way ABP is run or demands that ABP actually consult it's members on what their opinions are - needless to say all were defeated.
Also omitted are the resolutions that disappeared between the fall producer meetings and the AGM. Things that producers wanted adopted as policy but the leadership choose to override.

One such resolution was moved by me at my zone meeting where it was carried but then disappeared. I'd like to share it with readers and let them tell me why it is such a bad idea.
" Be it resolved that ABP research the potential opportunities for increased feeder and fat cattle production off grass rather than grain diets, taking into consideration the economic and environmental benefits of such a move."

I thought this was a better and more relevant resolution than the one that was approved at the previous year's AGM where ABP decided to spend money researching higher yielding barley varieties to compete with US growers increasing corn yields so that we could remain lower cost fatteners of cattle.
Well I'm no agrologist but I'm pretty sure you will never top US corn yields with Canadian barley yields - it just ain't going to happen. Colder climate and lower yielding crop - end of story. And then there is the ethanol byproducts angle that will always give the US the advantage.
A typical short sighted policy decision by ABP - showing they can only think of maintaining the status quo by tying producers to the same low cost commodity beef production that is failing them now. Whereas a chance to produce a potentially higher value, differentiated product that could access new markets and enhance producers returns is slipped under the table where it will never see the light of day.
Where is the logic in this??

[cakadu]

Agreed farmers_son that people will deal with the most immediate need first and for some producers, the wolf is at the door.

What do you see as some of the short term solutions to alleviate the mounting pressure that producers feel?

More CAIS money? Interest free loans to help through the rough spots - you can't borrow your way out of trouble.

As hard as it might be, now might be the time for change. If we are going to continue to rely so heavily on export markets, then we need to adopt things that will help to reduce and/or alleviate the barriers to trade.

[pandiana]

grassfarmer, the following resolution has not disappeared from ABP. The operative word here is 'research'. ABP does not do research, but does fund some research that has been identified by producers as being a priority.

This resolution will be addressed by the Technical Committee whose mandate is research.

" Be it resolved that ABP research the potential opportunities for increased feeder and fat cattle production off grass rather than grain diets, taking into consideration the economic and environmental benefits of such a move."

[cakadu]

Grassfarmer, (and others) you mean to tell me that up until now ABP hasn't really looked at this issue and the opportunities? There is a plethora of information on the benefits of grass production out there.

This seems to me to be an area of great potential and they are just putting forth a resolution now?

Oh my!!!!

[grassfarmer]

Cakadu, This issue has been raised as a resolution twice by me in the last three years in my zone and on other occasions by a friend of mine also in this zone - thus far nothing has ever transpired of it. I will be interested to see if the appropriate committee acts on it this time.