Check-off

[coppertop]

For the record Kee Jim and Darcy Davis received government appointments and would have been total fools to turn them down.
I was impressed with Kee's remarks regarding the new ALMS at the Beef Beyond Borders conference last July, and honestly think he will be an asset to the producers in his role with the Secretariat.

[grassfarmer]

Oh I wasn't implying Kee Jim was any fool, he is a smart guy and will be a great asset to the ALMS. He probably also realises the days of ABP/CCA playing a significant role in producer representation are coming to an end.

[per]

Once again I applaud your insight into this issue grassfarmer. If Kee Jim focuses on the greater good rather than Kee Jim's good he will be a huge assest. As far as the ABP being the democratic voice of the producers, we voted for the present GOA and the Ag Minister is just as democraticly elected as the Chairman of the ABP. It is a strange argument especially when their funding is not voluntary. We will see what relevence the voice of the ABP has when the check-off is refundable. I for one, will ask for it to be sent back to me so I can direct it where I think it will be of good use. I also believe it is important that the best use is in an industry organization and not in our own pockets. I suppose on that note if the APB gets it's head out of the sand it will most likely continue to be a winner in the check-off battle.

[farmers_son]

The issue before cow calf producers in Alberta right now is not a refundable or directional checkoff. It is ALMS and whether our industry should be market driven and producer driven or should it be mandatory and government controlled; directed through whatever is the cobbled together agency of the day; our activities, our futures and our ability to carry on determined by whoever is the Ag Minister at the moment. If anyone thinks a three buck check off even is an issue when Alberta’s cow calf producers are faced with that kind of challenge from government then they are clearly the ones with their heads in the sand.

[grassfarmer]

Well that's what the ABP and their/your SOSA(Save Our Sorry Asses)campaign is about anyway farmers_son - trying to make producers think the Government is out to get them with the big bad ALMS.
However the issue of concern among producers in recent years has been the leadership (or total lack thereof)by ABP/CCA. I'll remind you again of the proud record - the packers friends always voting against producer resolutions to ban packer ownership of fat cattle, against voluntary BSE testing ... the list goes on and on.
This IS the issue of the day, if anything is cobbled together it's the pathetic campaign by the ABP to discredit the ALMS. Just remember you are the ONLY producer group opposing the ALMS.... feeling out on a limb there?

[farmers_son]

I am sure you can find issues with ABP that you disagree with. And Grassfarmer probably has more issues than most. I was thinking the other day the only way Grassfarmer would have anything good to say about ABP was if they would put a picture of a Luing cow on the cover of the Annual Report and even then he might complain that the picture should have had two Luing cows in it. ;--) But we need to understand that we in Alberta are facing a fundamental change in the cattle industry. Some might feel that government control is necessary to ensure the cattle industry’s survival. Some of us do not feel that way and feel the government control is about a forced shift of profitability from the cow calf sector to the packer sector in order to ensure packer profitability. ALMS is clearly the issue of the day in this province.

There is a tendency in times of crisis, and we are in a time of crisis, to focus on small issues because the big picture is too overwhelming. If this province’s cow producers are busy debating the three buck check off at this time is like standing on the rail tracks with a freight train bearing down on you while you search on the ground for the three loonies you dropped. The fact is it is time to focus on the train, you can search for the three bucks after the train passes.

We can debate the pros and cons of packer ownership, ABP and so on until the cows come home. But cow calf producers are being sold a pack of lies by the Province of Alberta and that is what needs our attention. I have been to the ALMS meetings and the Province is lying out of both sides of their mouth at the same time. They are soft peddling the full extent to which the cow calf producer will be controlled, the extent of the fines and punishment for non compliance and the full degree of government intrusion into our lives at the same time as overemphasizing any potential producer benefits from ALMS (other than getting one more subsidy cheque)in order to persuade producers to buy in. The Government is offering sales to Asia as some of magic bullet that will save us if we only quietly agree to sit under the umbrella of Government control. Nowhere in their grand scheme is there any discussion of how any of the expected benefits actually end up shown in higher live calf prices and the reality is the Government cannot connect those dots because it will not happen. The fact remains the hog industry did achieve sales to Asia and they are worse off than the cow calf guy. Australia does export large volumes to Asia and their live cattle prices are lower than ours. Yet it is for darn sure that the primary cow calf producer is going to stand the costs of ALMS and I leave it up to the reader to figure out who is going to reap any benefits.

[grassfarmer]

You must be joking f_s - I wouldn't prostitute any of my cows to appear on the cover of your sad little comic!

You say "Some of us do not feel that way and feel the government control is about a forced shift of profitability from the cow calf sector to the packer sector in order to ensure packer profitability."
What?? do you/ABP still believe there is profitability in the cow calf sector currently and not in the packer sector??
Newsflash! this transfer of profitability happened a while ago with the willing support of ABP (remember the packer ownership of cattle issue and the ABP votes on them?)This happened right under the noses of ABP in the guise of the "free marketplace" you are so keen to champion.

I agree when you say "There is a tendency in times of crisis, and we are in a time of crisis, to focus on small issues because the big picture is too overwhelming." The overwhelming crisis is zero profitability in the cow/calf sector due to packer concentration and a captive supply situation both in Canadian feedlots and within the north American continental beef market, all aided and abetted by the ABP/CCA.
The small issue in this case is the relatively simple housekeeping rules being put in place by the Alberta Government to bring our production standards up to/ahead of our competitors.

Next you slam the Alberta Government for trying to gain market access to Asian markets with no indication of how these higher value sales would benefit the cow/calf producer. A case of the pot calling the kettle black from the ABP who propose the "free market" solution of doing nothing, continuing to supply the US market and relying on the trickle down effect to boost producers returns. Time and again ABP has refused to tackle, or let alone acknowledge, the fact that packers do not pass on any enhanced returns they achieve from the marketplace. Your policies have backed the packer in his position of dominance at every turn and you now have the cheek to accuse the AB Government of trying to help them through the ALMS when in fact this is so far the only vehicle that anyone has come up with that has a chance of breaking this packer death grip around producers necks in North America.

You say "Australia does export large volumes to Asia and their live cattle prices are lower than ours." I guess you missed the post from malleefarmer in your other thread that refuted your statement that Australian fat steers were $300 cheaper than in Canada? In fact he claimed they were $50 higher.

So no the $3 levy isn't the big issue. The issue is leadership and how we achieve the aim of helping primary producers gain a future. The tough issues of packer control, captive supply and accessing new markets off this continent must be addressed if we are to have a future. ABP has stood on the sidelines and done nothing but encourage the protagonists of the above mentioned problems for years now. For that reason your organisation along with the CCA must be neutered so that producers can move ahead with industry leadership worthy of that title. I've said it before and I'll say it again - this campaign against ALMS is nothing but a decoy operation to distract producers from seeing the real issues. I predict your campaign will fail and that your days are numbered.

[farmers_son]

You are correct in that I missed the reply from malleefarmer. The live price of fat cattle is similar in Alberta and Australia, that is about 88-90 cents per pound live until you adjust the price for the differences in the dollar. When converted to US dollars the Australian finished steer price is 70 cents per pound, the Alberta price is 83 cents US. That amounts to the Australian steer being worth $175 US less than the Alberta steer. Friday the Aussie dollar was .7886 US and the Canuck buck was worth .9268 US.

For comparison live choice steers in the U.S. traded at 96-97 cents. I know which market I want to access.

See:
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/files/markets/20080929_Mkt_Cattle_NSW_Wagga.pdf

[grassfarmer]

Come now Farmers_son, I wasn't suggesting we export to Australia versus the US. How about picking a high price market like Europe or some parts of Asia?

[per]

We've talked plenty about the ALMS, packer ownership, government control, other industry groups, the US market, etc... This thread was about the check-off f_s. It's not a case of avoiding the big issues by talking about the little distractions. It is a case of some of us are capable of discussing a variety of subjects. Are you trying to distract this discussion because you are uncomfortable with the topic?

[Sawbones]

I think we should concentrate what we agree on and try to achieve a solution.
1) The cow/calf sector is in serious financial distress
2) There is no trickle down from packers to producers
3) We need to develop alternative markets other than US
4) We need to get our of the commodity mindset
Others that may be contentious
a) The check-off is not giving us the desired return on our investment
b) The government does not have to control all aspects of our production
c) A one size fits all brand will not allow that differentiation that will deliver the results that we need
I believe that we need a choice in our packing plants. Counting hook space and # of animals to be slaughtered does not equate to maximum profitability for all sectors. We need flexibility and ability to access many different markets structure. We have the facilities but they are currently in a financial wreck. We can find the financial resources to purchase these facilities but we do need government assistance to backstop the startup costs until these plants can be operational. This could take 2 years. Plant space could be leased for as low as $18/head. Operational costs however would be quite variable until these plants are at capacity and these are the costs that would have to be covered. In Western Canada, we have the Balzac plant, Natural Valley plant, and the Winnipeg plant all originally financed by producer dollars. They have the capabilities of EU certification as well as Hallal slaughter. In Eastern Canada, there is Genecor and the Atlantic Beef. These plants could be used to develop new markets and once the value chains are established, processing could be transferred to the two major plants without the fear of them taking over the markets themselves and excluding the producers. Check-offs could be directed to these plants to help offset some of the start-up costs

[farmers_son]

Interesting comments…I have always been a supporter of producer packing plants and moving up the value chain to sell beef. I think the long time contributors to Agriville would acknowledge that.

However to be clear my focus is on increasing net producer returns. That has to happen. Potential sales to Asia and Europe are attention grabbing however I am not seeing the benefit at the producer level in the other major beef exporting regions so why would anyone expect to be different here? Part of the problem with beef exports not helping domestic live prices may be the high tariff barriers that exist in Asia and Europe, part of that may be that the consumer price of beef has very little to do with the producer returns for live cattle.

The brutal reality is that I need to improve my farm’s net returns right now and unless I can increase my return from cattle on our farm I am going to have to divert grass acres to grain acres. I do not have two years, five years to make that happen. I need to significantly improve my cash flow situation in the 2009 production year. To me, I do not need pie in the sky. I do not another government agency, I do not need the government forcing me to do this or that or else I do not get support that is genuinely needed.

Alternative export beef markets may sound great but the price of a live steer in the U.S. is 96 cents and the price of a live steer in Alberta is about 82 cents US this morning with the drop in our dollar Monday. That amounts to a basis of 14 cents US or about $200 per calf. Whether or not the competitive situation in the U.S. provides their producers a fair price for their live cattle the reality is their live price is $200 better than our live price. That suggests to me that we have a desirable live cattle export market right next door we should be focusing on more. There will remain a basis between the Alberta and U.S. price but I see the greatest opportunity to improve my cattle returns is to continue to work to reduce the live cattle basis between Canada and the U.S. Some of the causes of the wider basis are artificial non tariff trade barriers that the U.S. continues to have in place on our live cattle imports, COOL is part of that. Some of the wider basis is due to higher transportation costs and that is much harder to fix.

At least in Alberta I think the clear indication from Government is that they will support our two major packers at any and all cost. Even to the extent that they regulate ½ of the Provinces cattle producers right out of business. I guess producers are expendable, packing plants are not. And that may in fact be very true.

The Province of Alberta, as North America’s largest oil and gas producing region could be actively lobbying the U.S. for improved live cattle access to U.S. markets however that would be detrimental to the profitability of Alberta’s packing industry who would be forced to bid up for available live cattle. Instead the Agriculture Department is being shuffled yet again to be some kind of beef exporting wonder but even if that effort was successful it will clearly support the packing industry more than it will support the cattle producer and in fact the cattle producer may be worse off.

In short I think we already have a differentiated beef product and it is called grain feed beef. It is not so much we need to get out of the commodity mindset as we need to improve the net returns from our live cattle. It is not so much that the consumer needs to tricked or cajoled into paying more for a branded beef product through some clever branding initiative. It is that producers are not realizing a fair or adequate return for the live cattle they produce. The high retail price of beef is not filtering down to the producer level. My dream is to see producer packing plants but they will only improve producer returns if they are profitable. I am not willing to see their profit come at the expense of live cattle prices. And bottom-line I do not have the cash right now to be investing in anything other than paying down my debt.

In a lot of ways the Provinces ALMS could be thought of a diversionary tactic to take attention away from very real and immediate problems. We are in the midst of a global financial meltdown and the Province knows it at the same time the Province knows agriculture is burdened with a lot of debt. There is no way the present price of live cattle can afford that debt and there isn't time to be tinkering with or restructing our industry. We need today solutions for today problems. And the solution that stands the best chance of improving producer returns today and tomorrow is to continue to improve and maintain our live cattle access to the U.S.