ABP Resolution

[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.

[grassfarmer]

Sean, I agree with your poor attitude comments. Your post raises 3 questions in my mind.

1. Wouldn't your farm business advisory service assessment proposal be harder to sell to producers than the ALMS and would you make it mandatory?

2. Can I opt out of paying the ABP levy
as I am totally opposed to their policies and feel in your new free market, no assistance scenario this should be my choice?

3. Yes a cow herd reduction is happening, no doubt about it and it looks set to continue. However are you confident that this herd size reduction will result in increased profitability for producers? I am not and I think the guys citing this as the solution are being rather naive. We could go to 2 million fed cattle produced each year and as long as we have only 2 packers they will take a million each without bidding against each other and leave producers no better off than they are today. Imports will be pulled in from cheap overseas sources to maintain the low producer price. This is common practice in Europe.

[grassfarmer]

Per, You missed out one part on your ship analogy "....meanwhile down in the hold Captain Butters is assuring the passengers that all is well...the Titanic is unsinkable"

[smcgrath76]

1. Damn sure would be difficult, but it would also have a lot of value. I would not make it mandatory. You can't teach a stick to fetch a dog, so if a producer is not interested why waste the time and effort on it. No legislation required. Tie it to payouts if you want.
2. I don't oppose opting out, as long as you also opt out of generic advertising, etc. This is the same argument that downed the tomatoe board, etc. (LOL - they might write you a check so you will leave them alone)
3. I don't think a cow herd reduction will restore profitability (may hurt it for a lot of producers). I think it is a symptom rather than a solution, but it may expand the door to opportunity in the context of broader cooperation, different attitude, etc.

[Kathy]

A few things came out of the BigStone ABP meeting.

We passed resolutions asking ABP to NOT support ALMS and the Animal Health Act.

We passed a resolution asking ABP to not support "premise ID numbers".

We passed a resolution asking for ABP to determine the legality of ALL Canadian Cattle producers being automatically inlcuded in the BSE Class Action suite (without their written consent).

We passed a resolution asking for sections 12 and 13 of the AgiStability "Declaration of Applicant" be removed.

And a couple others were passed.
Go prepared, and the resolutions might just get passed. Whether they mean anything is the burning question that has dogged the ABP's credibility for years.

As for the guest speakers from ALMS:

The answer to a question about giving them our "capacity" for premise ID was answered thus,

"That's so the CFIA will know how big a pit to dig." (thats for YOUR cattle).

The same BS was used as an excuse for Minister Groenveld's unforgivable comment, to cooperate or "exit the industry" (Answer: he didn't mean to say it that way.) Right, that's why it was in the news release too.

Main message from ALMS was, Alberta beef producers are small potatoes on the 'global meat scale' and we can't become big players in the global market place without government control/management.

On rancher asked for Minister Groenveld to either apologize or resign because of "exit the industry" comment. This got a round of applause.

I'm quite happy to stay a Canadian player ONLY. Once they start digging the pits for our cattle due to some Animal Health issue, our border is going to slap shut anyways - and we will be right back to 2003.

Wisconsin has an ALMS type system with premise ID - they also require certain Mandatory Vaccinations. The Amish are leaving Wisconsin by the droves to settle where these premise and animal ID restrictions haven't been put into place. One Amish community is now being taken to court because: the mandatory vaccines can only be administered by a licensed veterinarian, and that vet cannot vaccinate an untagged animal from a farm without a premise ID. Thus the Amish farm is violating the law requiring their animals be vaccinated.


The Amish consider RFID tags the 'mark of the beast' - and based on the way things are going down - I agree.

http://www.familyfarmdefenders.org/pmwiki.php/NationalAnimalIdentificationSystem/NationalAnimalIdentificationSystem

Link to people defending Amish and the family farm in the USA.

[grassfarmer]

Sean I agree with you with the following stipulations.
1. Don't bother with the farm financial assessment idea - it's available now for those that want it. The majority don't so unless you will force them to do it why bother with the issue at all? Unnecessary.

2. I want to opt out. I never use the generic advertising that I pay for through ABP to sell my beef so I will happily opt out of both that and paying levy. The calves I sell to commodity markets I should not be paying advertising on anyway, I don't sell the beef off them, even the feedlots don't so why the hell are we paying for it? The packers sell the beef and they do not pass on adequate prices to the producers of the stock so why are we paying their advertising bills?

3. You agree with me that a cow herd reduction will not necessarily restore profitability. This one worries me a bit as many of the optimists I speak to who are sticking with their cows are doing so in the belief that reduced numbers will be their salvation.

[grassfarmer]

Well done Kathy,
I don't think the resolutions about ABP not supporting ALMS or Premisis ID will go anywhere - pity though because it would mean the ABP was again intent on committing political suicide. Truth is ABP have backtracked so fast on this to save their political skins they don't know their @#% from their elbows.

The lack of success in getting resolutions passed in my zone was not down to unpreparedness on my part,I can assure you of that.
Most of the attendees need to get a bit better informed - many are very much under the impression that it is a "them and us" situation but seem unclear on who the "them" are. Time and again producers moaned about the hardships they are facing now with low prices, high inputs, BSE testing and blame it on ALMS! They are also confused on what is caused by (or is the the responsibility) of ABP or Provincial or Federal Governments!
The same producers who moaned about packer control and profiteering at the start of the meeting voted against resolutions to introduce laws to enforce bans on packer ownership of cattle a few hours later. Go figure.

Re the capacity question on the premisis ID, I think this is a very valid question and having followed the F M disaster in the UK pretty closely is something that is needed so that disease containment can be planned for. A bit tough on the Government getting sued because they didn't take adequate steps to prevent BSE spread and at the same time getting bitched at by producers for trying to forward plan for potentially bigger disasters.

I guess you have oil activity in your area Kathy? Do you refuse to divulge how many people live in your house when the oil companies do their emergency planning checkups every year or two so they can protect your family in case of an emergency?