I sometimes wonder...

[cowman]

The basic concept of supply management was supplying enough product to fill the domestic demand? Was that a bad thing?
Of course you can't export...you give up that right to be assured you get paid a profit. What is the sense of exporting a product at a loss? The CWB is not supply management...not at all...it is an export agency!
Where is it written in stone that supply management meant quota was for sale? That is the way it evolved but the intention was never for it to be a cash cow. How about the concept that when you quit your quota goes back to the agency to be reassigned?
Actually our dairy and chicken farmers are very inovative...among the most advanced in the world? You must remember that their "guaranteed price" is nothing compared to the subsidies most countries pass out, including the USA!
What is the sense of being able to export to the US/Japan when we turn around and let in Aussie and soon massive amounts of South American meat?
Does anyone really believe the Canadian consumer is worse off because they can't drink imported milk or eat imported chickens? I believe the Canadian consumer is quite content knowing they are getting a safe home raised product at a reasonable price?
What in the end was the real evil of supply management...I would suggest the buying and selling of quota? Take that part out and it allows the small family farm to exist! And isn't that what we all basically want? To see our countryside and rural communities to continue and to prosper? You can have the multinational corporate outlook with a total **** of the land and people or you can have policies for the people and the health of the land.
Canada was supposed to be the land of opportunity for the European settlers...not something for the pirates and thieves to rob and **** at will?

[cakadu]

The original intention was for quota to be just that - it has evolved into the biggest cash cow (pardon the pun) that there is. If the sons and daughters of the original quota owners had to buy it at fair market value when taking over the farm, they wouldn't be able to afford it. Many inherit the quota and thus inherit the cash at the end of the day.

There are dairies etc. that do not operate at a profit, but neither are they as hard hit for being poor managers either because the costs of production are covered - theoretically. Those cost of production formulas are the most zealously guarded pieces of information out there. Just try to find one.

Don't kid yourself cowman about the amount of money that is "subsidized" to the supply managed industries. It is in the several billion dollar range, so we are not far off of the money that is being spent in other countries. In other countries it is spread around a little more than it is here. There are figures out there that if the supply management system in dairy were dropped today, the income of dairy farms would drop by 60% tomorrow - literally.

From a consumer perspective we are paying far more than we should for milk - if we were going on the world price. We also pay far more for the products derived from milk i.e. cheese etc.

As for the innovation - yes the equipment is innovative, but just try and set up your own cheese shop or sell milk on your own. That is the innovation I am talking about. The rest of the agriculture industry is fairly innovative too and it allows for new entrants, new products and thinking outside of the box. These are conspicuously absent in the supply management system.

There are pros and cons to every system and if you want to be rigidly controlled in order to be assured a fair return for your product, then I guess that is the way to go. Me, I want to be free to provide goods that the consumer is willing to pay for.

Make no mistake about it, if they can find some substitute for milk that has the same health benefits, or a company like Nestle for example can find a way to use something other than milk in it's chocolate - which by the way is becoming more and more of a reality - they will do it because they will be able to get it for a far cheaper price than what they have to pay for milk.

One of the reasons that Canada is not a big player in value-added meals and such is because our inputs, namely the milk, eggs and chicken we would use as ingredients, cost us far more than they do in other countries, which puts us at an economic disadvantage when trying to get into that marketplace. Next time you're at the grocery store, go and have a look at some of those types of items and see where they are produced. Not in Canada you say?

[cswilson]

I have inlaws in the broiler business so I get their view of supply management-it sucks. The cost of production formula doesn't respond as fast as your costs do for one thing. I'll tell you how much they dislike it after 30 years of feathers they leased their quota out and expanded their FREE ENTERPRISE cowherd. I can't understand all this badmouthing of our marketing and production system-it isn't perfect but it's better than any others out there.Of course you realize with supply management you are obligated to not underproduce either-fun city in a drought. It's like our coffee shop-old guys in there crying in their Java about how awful Canada is-when they are retired and cashing a cheque every month. We still live in the land of opportunity if you aren't afraid to look for it.

[PureCountry]

Very well said cakadu and cswilson, VERY well said. Our current system in this country is not perfect, but if you're looking for a perfect one, live in a fairy tale at Disneyland. Because our markets are unpredictable, volatile, and monopolized, we have become innovative, and must continue to do so if we are to survive. We cut our costs, or we look for markets that pay more, or we give the customer what they want and charge a premium. For some that means a DIFFERENT standard of living - not necessarily lower - or just thinking outside the box and making a few small changes. Hell our ancestors have adapted to overcome great adversity, and if we choose to follow in their footsteps as agricultural producers, we must do the same.

We do these things to make a living doing what we love, or else we get out and SHUT UP WITH ALL THE BITCHING AND WHINING!! If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[cowman]

The fact is supply management will never happen in beef. Not with the way "globalization" is happening. In fact in the end I believe the poultry and dairy industry will be sacrificed?
All I was asking is whether the whole concept of supplying the domestic market and keeping out imports might have been a lot better for the rural people?
What happens when we get full "globalization"? How do we compete when we live in the bloody Artic? Well a simple answer...we don't!
Just look at where just about everything you buy comes from? China, India, Thailand. What happened to all the goods that were once made here? Well they are no longer in business because they couldn't compete with 50 cents an hour workers and absolutely no safety or environmental standards. Now do you think that is a good thing? What it amounts to is slavery? I would suggest that is where we are headed in agriculture?
I don't think subsidies to supply management amounts to billions...I mean the feds simply don't have billions? However if you consider it a subsidy to have to pay a fair return to the farmer, then I guess it might be a large amount. After all we could probably buy milk from some South American country for less? But really do you begrudge having to pay a couple of bucks for a liter of milk? Would you be happier if you could get it for $1.50? Of course the family dairy down the road would have to go but hey, we'd save that 50 cents right?
But Canadians are innovative right? We'll dazzle the world by our little innovations in agriculture? Not going to happen. We'll "innovate" ourselves right into the poor house! And then we'll be eating Brazilian beef and drinking milk from Chile, while we go to work for 50 cents an hour?

[cakadu]

Cowman - the subsidy doesn't come from the government - it comes from you the consumer.

We may have been better off in the long run to have concerned ourselves with selling the best product domestically and forgetting about the global marketplace until the demand at home was met and fair prices were being paid.

Maybe the guy down the road milking 40 cows shouldn't be there. The only reason he can stay in business is because his costs are being met. There are a lot of inefficiencies in that system because costs of production are beig looked after. From what I can gather, the plan is to "weed out" those that aren't efficient, which means that the biggest dairies only will remain in business.

I wouldn't doubt that at some stage, supply management becomes a token on the global trading block.

When you think of the nutritive value of milk compared to pop, then yes, we should be paying far more for it. Having said that though, the lower income families who often are single moms, have a challenge in being able to afford things like milk. Sadly, there are plenty of those around - many of them in this province.

[Horse]

It sounds like cakadu and poorboy wont be happy unless they are marters or something . Whats wrong with getting paid for your work and mabey something for your investment and management skills . for slave labor we already have it , how many farms would not be there if it wasnt for unpaid child labor , Sure we are building character and all that stuff more lies to cover up the facts. If the consumer can afford things like insurance and autos , repairs ,gas ,heating why cant they afford to eat.
They dont have time to cook a meal but they can pay more for packaging than the food in it costs so they have more time to work to buy the toys.
If we could go to this so called global market place to get our imputs at saY MEXICAN RATES OR TIWAN RATES THEN WE COULD SELL AT THESE PRICES.