The Real Issue Facing Canadian Cattle Producers

[rkaiser]

I've asked for the document that ABP/CCA has put out regarding their policy on BSE testing. Supposed to get it out to me right after the new year.

Maybe if we talked nice to loric she would simply post it for us on a new thread.

I read it a few times this fall as it was available at all of the fall zone meetings. Full of opinion with no more facts than the tabloid that features Brittney Spears each week. But then again some folks consider that gospel too......

[pandiana]

Alberta Beef Producers Position on Voluntary BSE testing
ABP does not favor Voluntary BSE testing for three main reasons:
1. Science
a) Our policy on BSE testing is based on internationally accepted science-based guidelines
(OIE).
(i) Following OIE guidelines is the only road to legitimate trade discussions.
(ii) UK and EU testing policies follow OIE guidelines. They do not test everything,
and they do not demand that all imported beef be from tested animals.
b) There is no justification for testing everything.
(i) Cattle do not develop BSE symptoms in the brain before 30 months of age, and
most of our cattle are slaughtered well before that.
(ii) Only Japan tests under 30 month slaughter cattle. Japanese BSE testing is funded
by the federal government, but government funding will ends June 30, 2008. At
that point the Japanese provinces (prefectures) will have to decide whether to pick
up the tab. Consequently, the policy is under review internally, in addition to
external pressure based on WTO / OIE guidelines. This is a non-tariff trade
barrier.
c) BSE is not a food safety issue, and we do not need to confuse consumers by suggesting
that it is a food safety issue.
(i) Prions have not been found in beef, only in Specified Risk Material.
(ii) SRM have been removed from the human food chain since 2003.
(iii) The Enhanced Feed Ban prevents SRM from entering the livestock feed, pet food
or fertilizer chains. This will prevent accidental recycling and re-feeding of prions
back to cattle.
2. Economics
a) Voluntary BSE Testing will add costs
(i) BSE tests (including labor) cost about $60 / head. Alberta government costs for
lab tests for BSE surveillance ~$75/head. Voluntary testing would cost
considerably more than the actual costs of the enhanced feed ban.
-2-
(ii) BSE tests would require “test and hold” of the carcass; the rapid tests take ~1 ½
days (6 hours, plus prep. work, etc.). Carcasses are typically cut and gone within
24 in high throughput plants. Test and hold would escalate packer costs.
b) There is no evidence that BSE testing would add value – customers may not pay more
(either in Canada or internationally), and may avoid beef if they are reminded of BSE
every time they look at the labels in the meat case.
c) BSE testing would not have made the enhanced feed ban unnecessary; prions are in the
distal ileum before symptoms are seen in the brain, so we’d still need to segregate and
dispose of the SRM. So we’d have BSE testing costs PLUS enhanced feed ban costs. The
actual costs of the Enhanced Feed Ban (depending on the plant) vary from ($2.83 to
$6.82 on UTM), ($10.16 to $14.80 on OTM) for large packers, ~$34.00 per head in
smaller plants (Ontario). This is considerably more than expected. Note that Canada had
no choice. OIE controlled risk status was largely dependent on Canada improving its feed
ban. Maintaining this Controlled Risk status in the future will depend on us implementing
it successfully.
3. Trade
a) Routine BSE testing will not improve consumer confidence
Beef consumption in both Canada and the US increased when BSE was first diagnosed,
and is still around pre-BSE levels in Canada and the US. Also, previous point that
reminding consumers of a non-existent food safety issue every time they look at the
labels in the meat case may not boost consumer confidence.
b) 40% of Canada’s beef production ends up in the U.S.
If BSE testing jeopardizes that market (by making our packing industry non-competitive,
or by provoking trade action), 40% of our cattle would not be necessary. That’s half of
our producers, or more than half if it’s the smaller producers who are going out of
business. We have already seen how difficult it is to regain access to other markets.
For more information, contact
Alberta Beef Producers at (403) 275-4400

[rkaiser]

Well here it is folks. The document; the manifesto as farmers_son would put it. The hill that ABP/CCA chooses to stand on and possibly die on rather than listen to the producers in a democratic fashion. Their "perception" of what I will give up to be "some" factual material that ABP/CCA will not even allow a public opinion poll on. Arrogantly ignoring outside polls and even their own resolution process to show us how smart they think that they are.

1 - Science - Even though ABP/CCA clamors on about the science of BSE, they forget to mention that any potential test would have to also be accepted by the OIE. Pretty much makes all of the clamoring mute.

2 - Economics - What kind of a company would take on an issue like testing if they had not considered the economics involved. If the money made (because no company with any credibility would not make money doing it) by the first company forced others to follow suit - my God we may actually have found a way to increase the profits of all Canadian beef without cutting expenses or trickling down red ink to the primary producer.

3 - Trade - After a whole manifesto filled with opinion this one starts off with less fact than the first two. Complete and utter unsubstantiated opinion. Trade could very well increase, and consumption of Canadian product could increase should testing be allowed. Ad that is as much a fact as all of the third point in the document.

BSE testing for export marketing purposes may very well be the silver bullet to solve our market demand problems, but ABP/CCA has chosen to not even let it near a gun. I don't care how many times I am told to get over it and move on. How many times farmer_son says to us that BSE is old news. How many times this issue is squashed by the good old boys club at the ABP/CCA AGM. I will not stop.

If ABP/CCA chooses to make their stand on this issue and cause themselves to loose their checkoff lifeline, so be it. This battle will not end. The producers of this country need to be listened to. These opinions raised by the current ABP/CCA directors in this manifesto undermine the ability of industry to dig itself out of this BSEconomic hole. ABP/CCA has worked against the producers of this country and will eventually pay the price. This is, and will be the most important issue facing our industry in this BSE era until it is dealt with seriously. All other issues that are blamed for the current state of affairs can be linked to this very important issue of testing. I have said it before and will say it one more time. Testing is moral, honest and financially viable, and ABP/CCA has taken the wrong approach.

[DiamondSCattleCo]

So there you go farmers_son. Not only did the ABP/CCA NOT support the majority of producers, they went AGAINST their wishes. How exactly is that listening to producers, as you said they were doing earlier?

Rod

[farmers_son]

Where is this majority of producers thing coming from? Granted there are some producers who favor BSE testing but a majority, no not so. Not in Alberta, not in Ontario, not anywhere. Maybe in Rkaisers dreams.

[PureCountry]

And do you have any proof that there is a majority AGAINST testing? There's a few old boys against, granted, but don't try telling anyone there's a majority.

I'm going to make a statement F_S, and I'd like you to try and argue it. Here goes:

If we had adopted testing 3 years ago, we would probably already have BSE-tested Canadian beef in Asian markets. And please keep in mind that Asia and India are the 2 fastestgrowing economies in the world. So please don't deflect from the question and tell me that Asian markets aren't worth pursuing.

[rkaiser]

A show of hands at every BIG C meeting in western Canada held four years ago, where we were in front of thousands of checkoff paying producers showed well over 90% every time. Another poll by the Alberta Beef Magazine showed similar results.

Three of four meetings zone meetings that I attended where the resolution was brought forward passed with major majority and despite the misinformation of one delegate at the AGM the fourth was lost by a vote of 8 to 7 and the scrutineers, myself included were not asked for our numbers. I had it tied. My zone director asked me afterward if I wanted to challenge the issue. The vote in the zone where the CCA chair and ABP vice chair spoke against the resolution was still passed with an overwhelming majority. But I've said all of this before and old farmer_son was obviously not reading those posts.

Guess those were all dreams hay farmers_son.

ABP runs scared every time a poll or plebiscite is brought up.

Why not take a poll in your zone farmers_son. Maybe you could win in your dreams too.

[farmers_son]

The Asian markets are worth pursuing. They buy our offal products and add value to parts of the animal we refuse to eat.

And I was to Big C meetings and did see the votes at those meetings. A big part of the package Big C was putting forward was producer packing plants which I would still like to see happen at some point. I am not sure the time is now given the high labour costs in this province and 60% packing plant capacity utilization. There was more interest in BSE testing four years ago then there is now. That issue has pretty well died down (except here at Agriville) as we have resumed exporting live cattle to the U.S and trade with Asia is expected to get back on stream in 2008 although it will be age verified not BSE tested.

[per]

Died down, are you living in your own dreams? I just came in from a drive through my cattle with a large buyer. He brought up the testing issue without any prompting. The conversation came around to the Fort Macloed meeting and how testing was on the minds of the Majority at that meeting. I never sold him any cattle today but certainly did discuss that so called Dead 2004 issue.

[cakadu]

Forgive me for asking this, but hasn't the high dollar put a crimp in the exports to the US? Isn't that part of the reason the cattle industry is hurting right now?

Could part of the reason for the perceived "backburner" status of the testing issue be, at least in part, due to the inaction of those in a position to do something about it?

[DiamondSCattleCo]

First we get deflections, then outright lies. Well probably not lies, but rather words from a man who doesn't pay any attention to the primary producers in his zone, and listens rather to the packers line about whats best for the Canadian cattle industry.

We'd might just as well forget about trying to enlighten f_s. He only listens to Hugh, Cargill and Tyson. Reason never wins out against money.

Rod

[rkaiser]

Died down farmers_son? Only in your dreams. Kind of like a nightmare that will never go away until you make a change or see a psychiatrist.

I know that you wish it would go away so that you and your ABP pals never have to be held accountable for your regulatory position. A position never ever bestowed on you but you have somehow decided that it is your right to regulate this industry.

Had you and the gang simply stopped and said that it was not truly your right to control industry with your perception and opinion, and passed the buck, it may have been done by now. You and ABP are choosing your own path farmers_son, and that path is not going to end where you would like it to end if you do not back off on the BSE testing issue.

I noticed that the ABP flunky who lied about the resolutions at the AGM was quoted with his personal opinion in the Western Producer this week. Why did ABP not have the executive make a statement? Did they use this flunky as they know it is going to be a problem for them for a good while to come? Why not publish the manifesto in the Producer for all to see. Are they afraid that the public consumer may see the way that ABP/CCA wants to cover this BSE mess up and not take the high and moral road which includes testing if the consumer asks.

Testing is scientifically irrelevant you say ----- My ass it is irrelevant. Hiding from it and using economic excuses is pathetic and despicable....

[cakadu]

In giving it a little further thought, I think it would be hard to extrapolate that the majority of producers no longer want BSE testing. If the attendance numbers are as abysmal as others have stated, then it would be hard to say that based on those who show up and vote at a meeting it could be extrapolated to the cattle producer numbers as a whole. There would be no way to know that you have a representative sample of producers at any given meeting.

It would also depend on how the resolution was read or the motion worded. There also could have been other things more on the forefront of producers minds i.e. harvesting, hay prices, rising input costs, grain prices, falling cattle prices etc. We tend to focus on what is foremost in our minds.

The only way to know for sure would be to poll all cattle producers to get an idea of who still supports testing.

Would ABP/CCA be willing to use some of that check-off money to conduct such a producer survey?

[rkaiser]

Tried that too cakadu.

As far as farmers_son saying he never saw the votes at the BIG C meetings. Obviously he never even looked at the questionnaire which we took our numbers from, let alone submitted a vote.

The problem that ABP/CCA has on their hands now, due to this arrogant attitude, is that when this producer vote happens it will not just be about testing, but about the legitimacy of ABP/CCA period.

[per]

I'm ready for that vote.