Open letter to cattle producers re: ALMS

[kato]

As a Manitoba producer, I have some questions here.

What does this new approach do to those in other provinces who sell calves? There are lots of cattle who come from Manitoba and Saskatchewan and end up in Alberta feedlots. Is the subsidy only on Alberta born cattle? Or is it on out of province cattle who come from age verified, premise identified herds?

What compensation will we receive if/when a tariff goes on at the border? Can we sue the Alberta government? At least if a tariff is applied, Alberta producers will have pocketed some money from the provincial government to help tide them over. We get nothing.

The federal government's approach to this is to tell producers in other provinces to lobby their own provincial governments to match the Alberta approach. FAT CHANCE! Not in this province. It ain't goin to happen.

Has the Canadian federal government decided that agricultural policy is no longer a national concern? I cannot describe how disappointed I am in the Harper government over this. You would think that with a long tradition of being agriculture friendly, and with having the first western prime minister in a very long time, we could expect better of them. I'm actually thinking of not voting for the first time in my life in the next election because quite frankly there is no one worth voting for.

[Kathy]

I totally agree with holistic measures. We actually changed our ranching practices after 2003... unlike the hundreds of calf producers that sold their calves in the fall for less than cost of production.

We keep our calves over the winter (on hay) and grass them all summer. However, there is one desiding factor and that is moisture. The government can manage our business all they want, but they can't control the weather.

Policy is not law! Why on earth would producers cooperate with ALMS unless it is mandated law. If policy were law, all our little girls would be forced to have a very dangerous series of HPV shots this year in grade 5. Along with the Hepatitis B shot. [line up for their aluminum injections]

Thankfully this is not how our country is run (yet). Laws must be passed in a manner that protects our Charter Rights. Yet I know from person experience that the laws of Canada are being violated (re: vaccinations).

If and when the government attempts to proclaim their AB Animal Health Act, it will be challenged because it cannot grant the minister unconditional rights to licence "anybody". The act must specify who is under the law. But our minister is going to try to do this (license ranchers) via regulation.

I have seen our ranching operation survive the tough times, because we changed our practices. What was the point of changing, if the government is planning to 'subsidize" all the guys that haven't.

All this talk of government management and unified systems.... sounds alot like the old Soviet Union to me. Communism at its finest.

To hell with individual rights and privleges. Good-bye to property rights. We must comply for the good of the industry.

[wilagro]

The only way for this ALMS gimmick to work properly and fairly would require involvement of the adjoining provinces of at least Sask., Manitoba and B.C. as well as the FEDS...after all, calves find markets far from their home.

The more I read about ALMS, the more I think that it was hastily and poorly designed. Political motives directed this, I am sure. If farmer/ranchers can't receive adequate returns from the marketplace then perhaps a close look at the marketplace and the monopolies involved in running the so-called cattle exchanges and the packingplants and their practices would be in order.

ALMS will maintain the marketplace status quo and assist the monopolies even more than in the past.

[smcgrath76]

I was trying to keep my mouth shut on this post, but...
I can't see this money really "changing the industry". I can see the regulations changing things quite a bit, however until the producer owns cattle right through to the consumer, I can't see how they are ever going to get more than US live or rail price less the basis. If the border were to close this price would be much less than US, but the upper potential price in the current paradigm is just that. If producers are going to continue to market cattle in the same ways (for example presort sales in the fall), then they will not be able to extract further value from the marketplace, no matter what they do.
To truly say the program is a success (secures many new lucrative markets and adds value to calves in AB right back to the producer), the price would have to detatch from the US price. I don't think that will happen.
I don't think the vast majority of producers particularly want to change how they do things/have done things or they would have already changed.
350 million could have built/bought a slaughter facility, or encouraged value chains, but this way it only stems the tide for a little while.
I am not sure that saving the industry is a realistic goal, perhaps we should look more at enabling the people that want to change and letting the rest do as they wish. I know for several of my friends and neighbours the requirements of the program are onerous given their current production paradigm. They will really struggle to comply.

[per]

What parts are to onerous for these folks, sm? In a status quo world would their beef operation survive without changing? I agree that only those who hang on to the tail right to the consumer will be the ones to survive and the 300 million could be spend more wisely than a prop up the unsustainable, delay the inevitable, welfare payment. As far as age verification, premise id etc. if we hadn't already done these things for other reasons, I would probably resist out of principal as well.

[smcgrath76]

Not thinking so much about the initial things like age verification and premise ID, but movement tracking and eventually verified beef production would be damn near impossible for some of these folks.
I suspect most of the birthdate information will come via calving start date for a lot of operations.
Would they survive anyway?
That is a great question with many producers living on their equity. What would happen to their business in the event of a real estate crash, or interest rate rise? The way the 300 million was delivered probably prolongs the status quo. There just isn't any more money to be had in the status quo. Reality is the money goes to he who adds value. A live calf is worth $ only as raw material for a meat case somewhere. Unless partnering happens to that point of sale, then there can't be any extra money for the producer. In that situation (today's industry) the winner is the guy who cuts the most corners and sells on the average. Not the way things should be, but likely the way things are.

[per]

I'm not sure how to respond SM. Empathy is not one of my natural gifts. (I wish it were) If these guys are living on their equity maybe it is a watershed moment for them. Most of us have seen what happens to high land prices somewhere down the line. This whole thing is not going to be easy and without buy in and cooperation it may very well be impossible. Canada Gold looks like a fit for some of the concerns. High land prices are a frustration for me as I see promise in keeping and adding to the land base. All of my holdings are ridiculously overvalued for agriculture but I like it here. (probably the same reason the city folk want to live here) Ultimately we are all land speculators first and use agriculture to maintain the lands value.

[grassfarmer]

Sean, you say "To truly say the program is a success (secures many new lucrative markets and adds value to calves in AB right back to the producer), the price would have to detatch from the US price. I don't think that will happen." Well that's a matter of opinion - I think we are agreed on the fact that the above would be the desired outcome for Alberta producers. I would argue that this program lays the foundations for programs like Canada Gold to succeed and they are our best chance of achieving the aims you state. Age verification and animal tracking are not worth debating in my mind - if we don't do them we will be left behind by the rest of the beef exporting world. Saying that we don't need to do these things because the US doesn't is falling into the old ABP mindset that the US is our only market and our best market. Remember though that the US can eat all the beef they can produce - they don't need to rely on exports and that is a totally different situation to us.
There is so much hypocrisy about this debate in the press. CCA/ABP condemning it as being anti-free market, anti free enterprise yet CCA has already been to the Federal Government begging for producers to get a handout equal to Alberta's. If it were such a bad program, so anti free trade and such an onerous workload for producers why aren't CCA and producer groups in other provinces saying "aren't we lucky we don't have that terrible program they have in Alberta? - lets stay away from it at all costs"

[smcgrath76]

I don't disagree with many of your points GF. I am also pretty sure that we won't be removed from the US price anytime soon (ever?). The largest consumer base in the world lives on our doorstep, so others will have to pay the differential of product quality and freight.
I talk to a lot of producers all over the country and they are pretty concerned. Many are not sure of the implications of the program outside of the province (and I am not sure the province cares).
If many of these steps are essential (which they likely are) to market access and success, then those markets should pay for them, otherwise we will downsize industry as we are today.
I do agree with you about the P & M approach by ABP and CCA. I don't think that gets us anywhere.

[grassfarmer]

Unfortunately ABP/CCA think "leadership" means leading the P & M especially if someone else comes up with an idea.
Yes any superior markets we can access should be prepared to pay for our efforts BUT that does NOT mean we sit on our backsides and wait until we get a guaranteed price advantage before we do the work. To do so lets our competitors get ahead of us. We must produce the product to the higher standard first and then market it. At least the Canada Gold people realise this concept and are taking the bull by the horns and producing the product and marketing it. Too many producers/ producer groups get bogged down by sitting around doing nothing but talk about producing a better product and getting a premium for it. That's not how the market works - you have to get in and work your way to the top.
I predict the ABP Fall producer meeting will be a circus this year - ABP leading the P&M campaign telling everyone we have the best beef in the world, we don't need to age verify or track cattle etc etc. Well how has that attitude been working for us up to now?
Sad thing is a lot of producers will buy into this train of thought and another year will pass with no leadership. Unfortunately ABP/CCA think "leadership" means leading the P & M. I hear they were even proposing to sue the Alberta Government, using our levy money, to stop them implementing this program. Now there is progressive leadership for you!

[kato]

One more time.. What happens outside Alberta if/when a tariff goes on Canadian beef? Who pays? Why should it be us?

The rest of Canada took it on the chin over the BSE thing, even though the hot spot was Alberta. No one jumped on Alberta over it, they just accepted the fact that this is one country, and we are all in this together.

So now Alberta goes it alone with no regard to neighbours who have paid a large price for the events of the past six years. No regard for those outside the province who stand to pay dearly again if there is trade action over this.

Nice way to treat a neighbour eh?

The federal government should be ashamed of themselves.

[grassfarmer]

Kato, I hear your concern for cattle producers outwith Alberta and I don't know how it will settle out eventually.
As far as tariff goes I think that's a bit of a red herring thrown in by detractors of the program. It is clearly spelled out in the ALMS that the program was designed to be non-tariff and I believe the AB Government will have done their due diligence on this. Sure, some R-CLOWN types might get upset but what's new? It's not like US producers don't get blatant hand outs.
I note your displeasure with Alberta over BSE but to be fair a lot of the way Canada was treated was decided by international bodies rather than Canadian. If the Feds had said isolate Alberta but continue shipping beef from the rest of the country which could retain it's BSE free status it would have been laughed at(and turned down) by the international authorities. I haven't had BSE on my place so why would my cattle be banned from export and yours not? Where would you kill your BSE free cattle if Alberta was segregated from the rest of Canada in status?
Both BC and Saskatchewan have had their finger in the BSE pie to so it wasn't only Alberta either.
When you conclude that the Federal Government should be ashamed of themselves re moving the industry ahead - I think you are pointing your finger at the correct guilty party.

[per]

Kato, your neighbor is trying to improve its lot. That is not unusual among neighborhoods. None of this has been a secret from you or your government and if it is something that appeals then see what you can do to get on board. If our southern neighbor is interested in countervail they will find an excuse anyway. Having stress over maybes is a waste of stress. As far a what does this mean to your cattle especially if they come to Alberta, join up with Canada Gold. Their protocols meet the criteria anyway and participate to the end of the chain. Progressive thinkers like you would be a real assets to the Canada Gold Brand.

[Sawbones]

Kato, I appreciate your concern but you may have the advantage in Manitoba. With Natural Prairie and the producer plant that is supported by your government, you at least will have an opportunity to develop your own value chains. For the rest of you look close at Canada Gold. There are only 2,000,000 shars and those could be controlled by 20 people. The rest of you will be merely signing a deliovery contract

[kato]

Cattle producers in the Interlake area were shown on the news tonight. They were having a meeting organized to call attention to the total devastation they have suffered due to flooding. They've had an amazing amount of rain this summer, and lots have virutally no feed put up. The hayfields are still under water, winter is coming, and they have no money. It's a mess, to put it mildly, and it looks like the grain growers are soon to be in the same trouble, so they don't even have access to straw.

What is the province's response? They are going to help subsidize freight. One producer on the news said "We don't need assistance to haul feed, we need assistance to buy feed."

The province's response to that? "The federal government frowns upon provinces forming their own policies to assist agriculture, so we will not give any help." An interesting comment considering the federal governmnet's response to non-Alberta producers concerns with the Alberta program was to tell cattle producers in other provinces that they should lobby their provincial governments to match the Alberta program themeselves.

Producers in the Interlake are threatening to just sell off all their cattle and get it over with. If the Manitoba government doesn't think this situation requires any input from them, then they are obviously not going to get involved with any type of general assistance that even begins to come close to what Alberta is doing.

Pass the buck. That's the name of the game.