Unintended consequences of AMLS

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Kathy, you miss my point all together. They can force
me to follow whatever legislation they want right now.
A premise ID is going to be nothing other than
another way to identify me and my ranch. Bringing a
premise ID in is not going to lead to Big Brother acts
anymore than not having it. So to fight the new
legislation based on them enacting a premise ID is just
plain insane.

Rod

[smcgrath76]

I am not too worried about premise id. I already have a phone number, a SIN number (the most expensive number I ever got), a GST number, a mailing address, and an email. We have been premise registered for several years.
I am concerned about how government is going to force me to obtain a premium by commoditizing the very things that the marketplace was paying a premium for, and with the approach to "do as we say for your one time payout, and then we will legislate it for your own good".
You know what 1/2 the cattle in the country sell below average every year. And it should be every business person's perogative to obtain as much or as little from the marketplace as they desire. In other words, if you as a producer don't believe in a premium for age verification that justifies your investment, far be it from me to tell you otherwise. As well, if you choose to spend more than you make, that is your own business as well.

[grassfarmer]

Sean, The Government is not forcing everyone to obtain (or guaranteeing anyone) a premium. They are setting some very basic requirements that everyone must attain (And they really are fairly easy to meet and good practise in any case.)In the global market place we aspire to trade in we have a chance with this minimum standard of production to become market leaders rather than hangers on.
After that you are still on your own as far as obtaining the premiums. If that means you still support some form of value chain that is in place already or you invent a new one the choice is yours.
At least with this new approach there is an element of organisation - linking the genome research to worthwhile end goals backed by Government money.

[per]

When all is said and done 1/2 of all the animals sold will still sell below average and some will still figure out how to obtain a premium.

[smcgrath76]

the problem is not that people have to age verify per se. It is that the government is imposing cost structures without adding value. You can argue that age verification is a good practice and I agree with you. There are lots of good practices. The challenge is, how do you encourage good practice rather than legislate it? When it is legislated it becomes a cost, rather than a value added component. I read a lot of things in the document from government about movement tracking, recording/reporting of treatment records, DNA traceability, recording and reporting breeding, etc. All of these can be argued are good management practice and I would agree with that. They are not all fiscally rewarding practices though.
I see age verification and premises ID as the first step towards implementation of further measures.
It is not about what is being implemented, it is more a question of how it is being done and who has any control over it.
As the province increases its requirements, everyone's cost goes up and it becomes part of the cost of doing business, however I don't see the price magically going up.
From a purely personal perspective I just see that I am going to have to get even more creative at adding value to my product.

[Kathy]

Heard announcement this morning that in the USA the feds want to restrict the purchase of meat for the "state-run" school lunch programs - to ONLY those farms that participate in their federally sponsored NAIS - national animal identificaiton system and that have a Premise ID.

Seems this is a clear demonstration that the governments want to control who can and who can't sell meat. The school systems are a state responsibility, but the USA federal government, in order to get livestock producers to participate in their program - is attempting to limit the scope of the producers markets.

[grassfarmer]

How about looking at it from another angle - the fact that we are suppliers of human food and as such have a duty to supply a safe product that is fully traceable?
It is absolutely right that we should start by insisting that the food the school children eat is safe and monitored from birth to their dinner plates.
The school lunches I consumed through the late 1970s in the UK contained the grossest beef I have ever tasted. It was the worst of the worst cull cows they used, something I discovered once I started selling culls. Given the alleged BSE risk that was to transpire there in the 1980s you must realise the risk this would have put the nation's children under if the vCJD/BSE connection were true. In this day and age of litigation it is a necessity that we must move away from the trusty cowboy image to one of a modern, quality food supplier whose production practices can be verified as safe and sound.

[smcgrath76]

I don't disagree here GF. I think traceability is not a value proposition, but an essential proposition. Nothing I have read sells me the AMLS as a food safety program.

[Kathy]

The government approves all the drugs and chemicals used on cattle, not me. I don't use any unless absolute necessary, ie: a very sick animal You are saying that the food we/I have been providing to the food chain is unsafe ... How can you eat beef then? If you don't trust the ranchers.

Premise ID is a global identification number for your farming operations (not just a land location).... the farming practices will be dictated to us. The farming practices of some folks are not the practices I wish to follow... but government will decide NOT ME. So who owns your operation if you can't control your own farming practices?

This program is enslaving the ranchers not protecting food.

And no, I do not believe that eating beef/prions is causing vCJD.

Food safety is a ruse for food control/price control and corporate control.

Another rancher said to me the other day, that the good guys in the business are being asked to pay the price for all the bad operators that care for nothing but money - and treat the animals as commodities. These same bad operators are going to benefit big time by the government handouts.

There is nothing stopping us concerned operators from banding together in the Canada Gold programs etc, and testing - monitor the quality of the product sold.

There would be no need to bribe the rancher with millions of dollars in "recovery" funding if this program was a genuinely good thing. Without the handout - people would be screaming blue murder.... Food safety, my a$$.