Let me rephrase that...

[smcgrath76]

No one has yet been able to answer my question regarding AMLS.
First, let me say that the debate about ABP is relevant but whether or not ABP is useful/useless should not impact the assessment of the ALMS. I can't say I agree 100% with the statements in the ABP press release, but I understand the marketing aspects of it.
For a program to be of value (apply this to ABP or ALMS or WRP or NFU) it has to add value to producers. In order to accomplish this goal it has to either reduce costs or increase revenues while maintaining or increasing price. In other words it must increase margins. The best of all worlds would reduce cost and increase price. I hope we can all agree on that.
I have identified some of the costs of the new AMLS program (and potential future costs) for our operation. These cost estimates vary based on how the program is implemented and different methodologies I have dreamed up to deal with each scenario. I have no doubt that my cost structure is going to increase along with many other producers.
I have yet to understand how the program is going to increase my revenue (with the exception of my AB Government cheque). Can someone please explain this to me?
If the program will increase my revenue at a rate greater than my expense then please let me say that I will be one of the fastest and loudest backers of the program. It will not be the first time I have completed a full 180 degree turn (see my not liking girls in grade 3 to being happily married today as a good example).

[grassfarmer]

Sean, nobody is going to promise you more money and the Government is certainly not going to sell your cows/beef for you. The payback will come through the Government facilitating the creation of an environment in which we can succeed as producers. As it says in the strategy:
"This plan focuses on actions that would enable the industry to create and extract maximum value from the competitive environment, leaving specific initiatives on marketing strategy and business plans to industry. Government’s role is to help create an environment where industry can be successful."
I think you underestimate the difference having the Government on your side could make. Many of our post BSE proposals, plans etc would have gone a lot further had they been backed by government in spirit as well as by cash. I think this plan may give us the keys to unlock the captive supply situation in North American and ship beef off this continent. Just to have a shared vision between producers and the minister could put us in a much more healthy position than we have been in in recent years.

[smcgrath76]

But I can already do any/all of the things the government is now going to make me do. I already age verify (for a premium), I already have my premises registered, I already have an EFP, I already track animal movement between paddocks and to market, I can already follow EU protocol and market there if I want, I already know my breeding, I already have animal welfare standards, I already report my vaccinations.
How does making these things mandatory for everyone create more value? The government has not changed the environment overall. There are still the big 3 packers with the same challenges, the same excess capacity, the same high(er) feed costs, and the same high dollar. How does this add value or create something I can't do on my own if there is a return to me?

[grassfarmer]

But unless I'm mistaken you are not marketing into Europe, the plant you are involved with isn't competing with the big 3 it's killing horses. You may have some of the tools available now but the overall system isn't working. Imagine the position the ag minister is in if he goes on a foreign trade mission. Foreign ag minister is potentially interested in Cdn exports and asks availabilty "er, well we can't actually supply the product to your requirements at the moment our big 3 packers will only follow USDA protocols on the advice of CBEF and their packer masters"
With the new program our ag minister can now advocate for us because he knows what is available and has helped shape the standards we produce to. This is an opportunity to unlock enhanced returns from the market and supporters of new/ smaller processors might be first to see the benefits.

[smcgrath76]

That is the very first start of any logic I have heard on this at all GF.
I am going to make another post with what could be the unintended consequences of this...

[smcgrath76]

GF...
They can market into Europe and can kill cattle if they get a critical mass. The protocol to do so is freaking expensive. We are investigating this right now. Unless I was a veterinarian the protocols are cost prohibitive for me.

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Oops, missed this thread. My response that I
posted in the unintended consequences thread
likely should have went here.

I'm with Grassfarmer on this one. Back a couple
years ago I was talking with a couple livestock
analysts who were disappointed in the overall
utilization of the age verification program. They
said (and I believe) that we could have seen
significant gains to producer bottom lines had there
been enough age verified calves in Canada to meet
demand world wide. As it was, Canadian plants
could not guarantee sufficient numbers to attract
overseas buyers. Had we had a mandatory age
verification program at that time, the analysts
postulate (and I agree), those contracts would have
been sealed up and Canadian producers would have
seen their bottom lines go up.

Absolutely anything that increases demand for our
beef is a good thing. We may not be able to see
the premium on our cheques, but its there, buried
in it somewhere.

Rod