A little disgusted!

[cowman]

I was a little disgusted with some of the comments made by Rick Pascal in an interview with the "cattlemen" magazine. He seemed quite upset that Cargill/IBP had bid up the calves last fall to the point where the feedlots had to pay to much! And now with the low prices for fats they are losing money. He seemed to imply the price for calves should have been a lot lower!
Then he went on to say one solution would be if the federal government would immediately open the border to American feeder cattle without testing for blue tongue and anaplasmosis! He feels that would ease the high cost of feeder cattle!
Rick, what part of the world are you living in? Surely he must realize American feeder cattle are worth a heck of a lot more than Canadian? And I assume he heard US cattle are banned due to their BSE problem? I have to assume he is trying to get a long term problem solved by using short term hysteria? The fact is if the government opened the border to American feeder cattle tommorrow, not a single one would be crossing the border? But wait a year or so and things might be quite different?
He did not look good in this interview.

[kato]

I went on ranchers.net and offered to buy some 900 pound Amercian feeders for 50 cents Canadian...guess what...no one offered any!

I still don't get why it's such a hardship to test for bluetongue.

[wbrower]

kato: If you want to see some real enduring hardship in the cattle business in this country just keep playing games with non tariff trade barriers like blue tongue and see how long it takes for the border to reopen.

[cakadu]

From what I understand if we get bluetongue then that curtails a lot of the exporting of germ plasm - i.e. embryos and semen.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't see how we can just say we'll let the American animals in without testing for these things. We don't have them here - why in heaven's name would we play russian roulette and let them in without testing? Don't we have enough problems already?

I can't say that I have a huge amount of sympathy for the feedlot owners. There are a very select few and extremely small percentage that chose to play in a high stakes game. They have captured all of the value in the beef chain - all you need to do is look at what a cow/calf producer is getting versus the price in the supermarket and it says it all.

I am beginning to believe that the real downfall in the cattle industry was when the feedlots were allowed to take over to the extent that they did, removing any chance of value at the bottom end.

Out of curiosity I happened to ask someone I knew what this person thought of the mail-out campaign from the Alberta Beef Producers and this person told me that they knew who was giving thanks and it wasn't at the grassroots.

The lion's share of the aid package since this whole BSE mess started has gone to the feedlots. Am I going to feel bad for them - you be the judge!

[grassfarmer]

cakadu, I think you are being too harsh on the feedlots - they got slaughtered in this mess last year. The compensation they got was quickly removed from them when Cargill and IBP dropped the fat price from 78c/lb to 36c/lb - to me they are the real crooks not the feedlots.

[Horse]

I have said all along that our problems started when everone went on credit as the banks wont lend unless there is a contract in place and hense the packers own the cattle and the feedlot operator body and sole.
The only advantage is to look important by betting with someone elses money if it works good and if it fails so what I dont say they dont have and money in the game but when you use leverage you take a larger risk
When the country was full of 300 head lots there was a lot of us making a decent living as we used our own $ and fed a lot less midle men. Now I dont say 300 would be practable now but I dont think 100,000 is ethier mabey I an stuck in the old days but we got the job done to.

[blackjack]

Sounds to me like Mr Paskal and his 'BUDS' would love control of the feeder market. Wonder what his companion`s did with their aid package? Last time I checked there was some small backgrounders that bought feeders. I imagine that they would have appreciated the help!

[boone]

Horse: A few years ago I had the chance to take in a conference with some bankers and larger feed lot operators, what I came out with was many small feedlots get wiped out because they weren't forward selling their cattle and often didn't lock up their feed costs. They probably most owned the stock so the bank couldn't demand good biz principles, so if they gambled on the market and stayed in to make a killing and bet wrong. Quite often the result was another damned feedlot not paying it's feed suppliers that they were holding off paying trying to make it all back on the next cycle. Comments? The other thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is the large amount of tax cattle in the lots that don't cost operators anything and they absord no loss if market goes bad, like lately. Plus they keep sending out the maintenance bills every month. Pretty sweet deal at cost plus margin. What does everyone think on these subjects.

[cakadu]

Grassfarmer - it still doesn't change the fact that they got the bulk of the compensation. Who "owns" the feedlots? The worm does turn.

We have bought into the notion of "bigger is better" hook, line and sinker. There is no way that the cow/calf producer can get any of the value out of the product that he/she produces in the current system. I have a firm belief that things happen for a reason and maybe, just maybe this is a way for the cow/calf producer to start taking back what has been lost to him for so long now. What I would like to see is the "wealth" to be spread a little more equitably along the whole continuum instead of being captured solely at the top. More margin to the producer is never a bad thing.

Some have said in other posts that we shouldn't be laying blame, but I wonder why (as I'm sure so many others do) the price of beef has not come down at the retail level? Let's say that the major supermarket chains buy on 6 month futures - I don't know what it is, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say 6 months - we are now going into our 10th month of this crisis and from what I understand there really isn't a "futures" side to this at present. Based on that, shouldn't the price be dropping at the retail level?

Why aren't consumers hopping mad that it hasn't?

[cakadu]

Grassfarmer - it still doesn't change the fact that they got the bulk of the compensation. Who "owns" the feedlots? The worm does turn.

We have bought into the notion of "bigger is better" hook, line and sinker. There is no way that the cow/calf producer can get any of the value out of the product that he/she produces in the current system. I have a firm belief that things happen for a reason and maybe, just maybe this is a way for the cow/calf producer to start taking back what has been lost to him for so long now. What I would like to see is the "wealth" to be spread a little more equitably along the whole continuum instead of being captured solely at the top. More margin to the producer is never a bad thing.

Some have said in other posts that we shouldn't be laying blame, but I wonder why (as I'm sure so many others do) the price of beef has not come down at the retail level? Let's say that the major supermarket chains buy on 6 month futures - I don't know what it is, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say 6 months - we are now going into our 10th month of this crisis and from what I understand there really isn't a "futures" side to this at present. Based on that, shouldn't the price be dropping at the retail level?

Why aren't consumers hopping mad that it hasn't?

[cowman]

boone: The whole issue of "tax" cattle is something that really needs to be addressed. For many small/midsized lots it is their bread and butter and they wouldn't exist without them. An example a local 5000 head feedlot custom feeds 4500 head and only has 500 head of their own cattle. The owners of the 4500 head are basically split about evenly between local grainfarmers and "professional corporations"...read that as doctors, lawyers, accountants and a couple of judges! Now these "professional corporations" really don't care one iota if they have a profit or a loss as the whole idea is for a tax writeoff?
But this setup has made it possible for this lot to do quite well. Buys local grain and other supplies and provides a few jobs. Also buys quite a few local cattle at good prices? We all know how the calf market goes up when the tax money comes to town in late November early December? So it puts a few more bucks in the cow/calf guys pocket?
The large commercial feedlot must compete against these tax cattle and that must be frustrating? How do you compete against someone who couldn't care or less if he is making any money?

[boone]

cowman: I agree it must be frustrating but reality. Sort of like in Saskatchewan where most farmers get a pension him and her and farming is something they do till the hip breaks or the heart stops, kids are in Alberta trying to pave over your place.
Crazy world! I'm not judging anything here just observing.

[bombay_43]

Cakadu, I stand with you when it comes to blue tongue and anaplasmosis! I think the Canadian cattle industry has enough trouble getting back up, without setting itself up for another fall!

I did review the 12 page discussion paper on these two diseases, and I do not support opening our borders to untested cattle! As it is now, Canada has less restrictive import conditions, than other countries.

There are too many unknown variables with regards to both blue tongue and anaplasmosis. Time for Canada to look after its own interests.

I know that our representatives in our provincial and federal cattle associations have been pushing hard to remove testing, with the expectations that our borders would open. I am told it is a trade off. Maybe our representatives, should start by representing those of us who are paying the $3.00 checkoff per animal!!

From the discussion paper; anaplasmosis treatment using tetracycline, did not eliminate the organism from infected cattle, yet my ABP rep tells me it is easily treated!

The CFIA estimates between 12.1 and 36.0 million dollars in direct production losses and $3m in costs to CFIA as a consequence of anaplasmosis becoming established in Canada! In 2002, it was ranked 5th in economic importance among the diseases affecting cattle in the U.S.

Blue tongue, would perhaps have a greater impact on our sheep and goats than cattle. Keep in mind this also includes our wildlife. Big horn sheep? I think it is high time that we in Canada, start to look after each other, and issues that could affect our country as a whole!

Allowing untested cattle into our country from states with low incidence of these diseases is acceptable, but I don’t agree with an open door policy. Let’s not compound our problem.

[boone]

bombay: Well put and clarified. You can't appease a bully, and if we haven't learned this by now we deserve what we get. Our little leaders haven't got the guts of Trudeau! Now that ones gotta hurt.

[cowman]

Somewhere along the line, I suspect, a decision was made to allow the USA to have their way with us on this bluetongue/anaplasm thing? I find it surprizing that the government vets were dead against it but now seem to have rolled over? Like they suddenly got the word to shut up and don't fight city hall sort of thing?
I doubt blue tongue will affect our cattle in central/northern Alberta but I'm not so sure about the Anaplasm thing? I would think the breed associations would be "uncomfortable" by the turn of events that might allow these diseases in? And yet I haven't heard them come out against them? I mean it could really affect their export sales I would think?