ABP Resolution

[farmers_son]

Now to be clear, it is not fair or right to say the majority of ABP delegates support packer ownership of cattle just because your resolution did not carry the day.

You might want to try your resolution again this year given the changes in our industry.

Personally I have not seen where packer ownership bans have worked in the U.S. and question why it would be any different here. Such bans are simply not effective as there are many ways for the packers to own cattle and frankly there are producers out there who choose to sell, forward price or contract cattle to the packers. And shouldn’t that be their choice?

Really where do we get off telling a cow calf producer or backgrounder who they can or cannot sell their calves to? Why if you looked into it you may find those grassers you sold for good money last August may have been bought by a packing plant.

The line of thought that restricting packer ownership of cattle will somehow increase the market price of live fats is pretty much along the same lines of thinking as we see the Americans believing they can force the packers to bid up the price of their live cattle by shorting their live cattle supply through non tariff barriers like COOL. The problem of chronically marginal live cattle prices will not be solved that easily. My opinion only.

[grassfarmer]

This is where the debate gets interesting farmers_son
"Now to be clear, it is not fair or right to say the majority of ABP delegates support packer ownership of cattle just because your resolution did not carry the day."
Mr Butters told me that it was democracy that defeated this resolution so if that is the case the majority of the delegates present at the ABP AGM last year must have opposed the resolution hence my assertion that they support packer ownership.
There is no grey issue here - they are either for it or against it and if Mr Butters is telling us the truth about the democratic process last years results prove they are for it.

[farmers_son]

When I express my opinion that a ban on packer ownership will not work it does not mean that I support packer ownership of cattle.

It is a complex problem. I suggested you retry your resolution. There are no easy answers but more debate and giving people an opportunity to further think about and discuss the issue can never hurt. But there are no guarantees your resolution would pass because there are good points to be made on both sides of the issue.

[grassfarmer]

So what are the good points in favour of packers owning cattle? that's what I'll be fascinated to find out.

[farmers_son]

I believe I outlined what I see is the side of the debate against a ban on packer ownership. To repeat those points:

• Why should the backgrounder and grasser guy be prohibited from selling their calves to the packers if the packer is the high bidder and why should they take less for their calves because the packer is not able to bid.
• I see no way to make an effective ban on packer ownership as there are just too many ways around it.
• I do not see where bans on packer ownership were effective in the U.S.

I am not in favour of packers owning cattle but I am also not in favour of stupid laws that are unenforceable, do not work and cause more problems then they solve.

[rkaiser]

I would say that at least part of the reason that cow calf folks do not support a packer ownership change is the mistrust in the system. Even if the feedlots were to benefit --- even a little bit, the cow calf guy feels he/she will receive no benefit.

Your last point about finding another way to screw us is a perfect example of the mistrust and fear in the industry.

It has not worked in America because it is not national. Packer ownership changes could work if the producers got together and -- cow calf and feedlot -- and discussed the obvious negatives without adding more themselves.

The potential for market manipulation is as obvious as the nose on each of out faces and that should be enough alone to look for an alternative.

[grassfarmer]

Well it’s a good job there aren’t any cliffs near Breton, AB or I would have driven off one last night when we finally got done with the ABP Producer Meeting at midnight. The minority of beef producers living in the zone who actually bothered to attend spent the evening beating up on the Deputy Ag minister for the state of the industry today – low prices, shrinking cattle herd and packer profiteering. They wrongly blamed all these problems on the introduction of the ALMS which clearly has nothing to do with them.
The slick talking delegates then somehow convinced the audience, without providing one fact as evidence, that there was a positive side to packer ownership of cattle. So not only is it highly likely that a resolution on packer ownership will again fail at the AGM in Calgary, I’m embarrassed to say that the predominantly cow/calf producer audience of Zone 6 doesn’t even want to raise this resolution at the AGM. Congratulations producers, you have just voted for the status quo. Next year you can go back and bitch about the low prices, shrinking cattle herd and packer profiteering again but realize that you have got what you voted for.
Another “victory” for the ABP – and defeat for primary producers who will continue to struggle to make a living. Unbelievable.

[grassfarmer]

So farmers_son actually came up with one reason that could be articulated – that’s more than the delegates last night were able to. Basically - it would mean one less buyer for calves/grassers. What great logic, I remember you/ABP telling us recently F_S that the Nilsson takeover of the Brooks plant was good news as it meant we were adding an extra buyer (the Tyson plants in the US) Just a few weeks later how is that working for us? Tyson is buying zero Canadian cattle – whether fed in the US or here due to COOL. But COOL has been on the cards for years and the ABP didn’t have the vision to forsee this. The ridiculous argument that knocking out one buyer will reduce the price of calves at a time when this industry is strangled by monopolistic control does not bear consideration. On the contrary if you prevent packer ownership of cattle we could have many more buyers of calves, and independent feedlots. ABP – all About Backing Packers.

[smcgrath76]

GF - you have indirectly stated my concerns with the entire state of affairs including ALMS.
ABP, the provincial government or even an individual producer cannot overcome challenges with a negative attitude. Changing an industry is more about changing attitudes within an industry than making sweeping structural or legislative changes.
Attitude stops producers from working together to achieve critical marketing mass, developing branded programs, or even getting funds together to buy Tyson at Brooks.
While I have huge concern for the industry I don't think a bailout or an ALMS or a directional checkoff or banning packer ownership of cattle solves the overriding issue of attitude.
When it gets down to the brass tacks, you either change your business, fund your business from outside sources (government or off farm), or you quit. I think a lot of people are doing one of these three things right now.
For example I think that a better strategy for the AB Gov to take in the long term view of eliminating subsidies would have been to make every producer go through a farm business advisory service assessment.
We know the industry is contracting and will likely continue to do so, pending ethanol, etc. The prediction I saw on one economic enews this week projects 3.2 million cows when it is done. The remaining industry will also likely shift towards a more pasture intensive program and will contain a more engaged producer.

[per]

It seems we are riding along in a big ship. The primary producer is the engine, the feedlot operator is the gas and the packer is on the helm with the retailer directing it through the pass. The government provides the waves and the current.

The engine is running out of steam and if the folks on the helm don't fuel up the tanks we will have no choice but to go along 3 million cows lighter.

Low cost operators, some value chain groups and subsidized outfits will hold those remaining cows at the other end.

Until the will to work together in the same direction as SM says, and the retail sector and packer recognize the damage that is occurring by not looking after the cargo and fuel tanks happens, we will surely contract.