Whats the difference

[magpie]

Food consumption
2002
Canadians are including more cereal products, low-fat milk, cream and poultry in their diets, according to data on the amount of food consumed. New experimental data, based on estimates of food available for consumption, have been adjusted to account for retail, household, cooking and plate loss.

Canadians are eating more pasta, bakery products and cereal-based snacks. This hefty demand has resulted in the consumption of grain-based products reaching 65.6 kilograms per person in 2002, up substantially from 53.3 kilograms per person a decade ago.

Lower-fat milks still appear to be the popular choice among consumers over higher-fat milk. Canadians are drinking 26.7 fewer litres per person of higher-fat milk than they did 30 years ago. Lower-fat varieties such as 1% and skim milk continue to grab higher market shares.

However, Canadians have not abandoned higher-fat products entirely. Cream continues to show a surge in popularity, as consumption in 2002 reached 5.3 litres per person, up just over 1 litre per person from a decade ago. This growth is in line with the increasing consumption of coffee in recent years, especially from food service establishments.

Red meat consumption totalled 27.1 kilograms per person in 2002, down from 27.6 kilograms in 2001. This decrease is due mainly to declining beef and pork consumption. Beef consumption fell 2.2% to 13.3 kilograms per person. Pork consumption, at just over 12.0 kilograms per person in 2002, dropped 2.5% from 2001. A surge in exports, fuelled by strong demand for Canadian pork in the United States and Japan, offset increased supplies.

In 2002, poultry consumption reached 13.6 kilograms per person, up 23.5% from a decade ago. Each Canadian consumed more than 11.0 kilograms of chicken. The ongoing popularity of easy-to-prepare and ready-to-eat chicken products with time conscious consumers has contributed to the overall increased intake of chicken. Despite the growth in chicken consumption, beef remains the most popular choice of meat for Canadians.

According to this it would seem that 49 lbs on ag vision was the latest number as 29.2 was 2002 consumption. It seems rather low doesn't it?

[cowman]

I heard one quote awhile back that said Canada had to export 70% of it's beef production! Now I doubt it. In the west we export a whole lot of cattle but in the east I expect a whole lot of American beef comes in? Not to mention the Aussie/NewZealand stuff?
But if we do over produce there is a simple solution...reduce the cow herd?
Why is the cow herd so large in the west? Simply put...the bright lights in Parliment killed the CROW! Does anyone really believe if we were getting a decent return on grain we'd bother keeping a bunch of old cows? I remember the year the CROW died UFA did a booming business selling posts and barbed wire as all the grain farmers started to seed down that good black dirt to grass! Land that can grow 80-100 bu. of barley should never have been put down to grass, in my opinion...but yet, I did the same thing?
Government bungling compromised the grain industry and led to the oversupply in cattle. If they hadn't been such idiots and weeping nellies back then we wouldn't have this problem today?

[amazed]

The removal of the CROW was not handled well at all but it was not all just the government's fault.

Groups like Sask.WheatPool and the NFU doddled, dallied and bickered long enough that the initial amount proposed by the feds was reduced substantially.

[Horse]

Cowman I agree that every one sold thier combine and dug a silage pit and became cattle producers and with all this whining by the feedlots there are lots that are making good money custom feeding and there are those that are making good money on thier silage but claiming a loss on the cattle in our area it was dry but some got 13 ton silage and some got 2 ton per acre it all depended if the showers hit you or not so one may loose and one may win.

[grassfarmer]

" Land that can grow 80-100 bu. of barley should never have been put down to grass, in my opinion."
That is a truly breathtaking statement Cowman, but one I've heard before in Canada. "Land that is too good to grow grass on - wow"
I thought the prairies were one of the greatest grasslands the world has ever known - until the settlers came. The land in it's original health would have reared many more cows, fattened all the steers on grass at two years old and been sustainable in perpetuaty. Instead we have tilled the land until the organic matter is gone, erosion is a problem and no one is making any money growing grain anyway. A system based on oil, a finite resource recovered right here in Alberta using finite drinking water. Why are we so intent on this cycle of self destruction? Will we never learn that nature is a provider for us not something to be beaten smashed and outwitted?

[cakadu]

I went on a tour of vegetable growing land south of Montreal a couple of years ago when I went out for a conference. Apparently what they had done is drained the land, which left all this rich brown organic matter that was great for growing vegetables.

As you went further along, you could see what happened to the earth after each year went by. Within 7 years the organic matter was almost depleted and for what?

I'm in agreement with you grassfarmer, we keep forcing the land to do what it was never meant to do and we are getting poorer for it.

I look at the other side of it and realize that we need what land we've got in order to grow food, so it very much becomes a balancing act and which actions are best is hard to determine.

I have a hard time sometimes buying into the notion that we are "feeding the world" because we tend to only want to send food to those countries that can pay. We do our part in terms of sending aid for relief to those countries that need it, but in reality, we grow for those that can afford to pay.

Many of the developing countries are working towards being able to grow more food, so do we need to keep tearing up marginal lands in order to produce more of what we can't sell for a profit?

I don't know. The waters are becoming increasingly muddied.

[cowman]

Well I'm speaking from a purely economic sense not how it should be. I figure I'm not here to solve all the problems in the world...just to do whats best for me and mine.
If grain had kept pace with inflation and transportation costs hadn't risen to the point where it took half of production on some crops I would suggest that the cow might be a fairly rare thing in many parts of the west?
I remember in the mid seventies we sold barley one year for $2.80 bu. delivered 2 miles to a hog barn. I bought a new chev pickup in 1974 for $4200. Today the barley has decreased 30 cents and the pickup has increased 1000%! So I wonder if barley was at $28 bu. if I would be wasting any land feeding a cow?
How many acres does it take to feed a cow? Say in a good area? 3 or 4? What is that land worth? Between $1000-$2000/acre? And a cow grosses what? Say 750? In the very best scenario that works out to a gross income of $250/acre! Now that is gross not net! What is the net? very poor.
The fact is there is no cow in the world who can compete with a good canola crop and they shouldn't be able to compete with grain either! They should be confined to the desert and the junk land where you can't run a seed drill...and they can be effective scavengers for the crop aftermath.
You talk about oil and water. Well there is a market for oil and virtually none for water? So if there is no market what good does it do me? Now I do sell water and I do have some oil and gas interests. Lets see oil $37 barrel... water works out to about 40 CENTS a barrel! Now which one is more valuable to the guy selling it?
Maybe I am too much of a Scotsman but the way I figure it is if something is so valuable then show me the money! I'm not too much into this altruistic stuff.

[grassfarmer]

Money, money, money - is that all it comes down to? Pity future generations when they have no water to drink , then it'll be academic if they can make more selling the last few barrels of oil or bushels of canola.

[magpie]

We can grow 80-100 bu barley crop, we have fairly good land. Canola grows well to, the problem is we should not grow canola back to back because of diseases. If we could, yes the cow would have competition. If you look at prices before BSE they were fairly consistent , more so than the canola prices. Our land will grow good crops and good grass on normal precipitation. Not hard to pasture cow and calf on 1.5 acres but most use 2 along with rotation and some fertilizer to be safe. Silage and hay also grow quite well on normal years. 3-4 acre will get a cow thru on any normal year. Now with tub grinding and mixing rations with straw and hay we can bring down the costs somewhat but only to a point. Definitely have to do feed analysis every year. I do both worlds and find the amount of Iron that is needed to grow grain is getting way out of hand, not saying that cattle equipment hasn’t, but you don’t need as much of that iron to raise cattle. Grain prices are always up and down, more down than up. On any given year one will out do the other but in the long run cattle are a decent investment. Now thinking before BSE if I spent 100,000 on a combine and the same on cows I do think after 10 years of depreciation I would retain more of the original investment with cattle or at least I could pick my exit point. Remember this was the thinking before bse. Now we will wait and see what becomes of this. Perhaps thousands upon thousands of acres will be turned into grain production which will not bode well for prices. I’m not bitter against those that have leases and oil or gravel under their land, gosh I wish I would be so lucky, but around here we had to find a way to smooth out the highs and lows of income. What it boils down to , is that we can’t keep getting 1960 prices at 2004 costs. As far as water is concerned I do feel it has a price. I’m not a seller but a buyer and nobody can equate a price until they’ve walked in the shoes of someone that hauls it. We buy drinking water at 56.00 per 40 gallons, the cattle water we haul is cheaper but again still costs.

[nerves]

Grassfarmer you are right about the prairies being great grasslands, the soils are sensitive to any disturbance. I think cowman is refering to soil in his area that probably treed with black and white poplar and few spruce trees when the settlers came. Thease soils are very heavy clays and can grow fantstic crops of grain and hay both. They can also support large amounts of cattle under rotation. To grow 100 bushels year after year takes moisture and living close to mountains helps most of the time.(although hit and miss lately) Most water wells are under 150 feet deep. (all of ours are around 60) Farming practices are changing and we are learning.

[cakadu]

Ah cowman - you take me back to the days of Economics 101. There is a phenomenon one is taught called the diamond water paradox. Right now, we pay a lot for diamonds because there isn't a huge supply of them and most of us can't afford to have too many of them hanging around. Water, in comparison, is a lot cheaper because it is or at least was in abundance, so you don't want to pay much, if anything for it.

There will come a day, when all your diamonds will not be able to buy the water because there just won't be much water at all -- hence the paradox.

The Americans are after our water big time and there is some multi-billion dollar lawsuit going over something that was written into NAFTA, or not written there, I can't remember which. They are in dire need of water down there, particularly in places like California.

I hope that we never see the day when we think that $2.00 for a bottle of water is a real deal, but my fear is that we keep getting closer and closer to such a day.

[cowman]

Water: Put a decent price on it and just watch how people conserve it and value it. Is that a bad thing?
Water right now is basically worthless. So worthless that our provincial government lets it be injected...never to be seen again!
When Ralph Klein decided that we all had to register our water rights he started a process where water will become a commodity no different than beef or wheat or oil. There will be lots of legal battles I'm sure but in the end I do believe we will be able to buy and sell. And I would suggest that might be a good thing?
Right now a farmer cannot sell water...only the "access to the water". In reality it is selling the water. For example forty loads of 100 barrels each the "access" is $1600. When the oil company needs 60 loads the "access" goes up over $2000. Of course this price varies from area to area and how much competition there is.
Now the day might come when you will be able to charge by the load...just like the municipalities can right now and do!
Now why is it okay for the municipality or province to be able to sell water(subsidized by the taxpayer, I might add) but not okay for a farmer?
Money isn't everything, but it sure is nice to have enough to keep the wolf from the door? I've worked hard at cultivating my water business and it probably makes me as much as the cows in a normal year with a lot less work and headaches. I don't feel one ounce of guilt "selling" water. It is only going into the pit and then is recycled back into the water cycle. I make some money, the oil company makes some money and no water is lost! Sounds like a winner for everyone?