BIC-C policy

[grassfarmer]

This mandatory testing idea may be somewhere between that rock and that hard place. It may not as well, but it certainly deserves the look that Shirley and the gang at ABP will not give it.

What the heck is protectionist about looking for new markets when our current buyers don't need us cswilson?

How is it that everthing is supposed to work rsomer? The border opens to live fats under thirty months, which leaves us with the cull cow problem. Feeders stay in Canada with American buyers and costom lots. Piss on the purbred guy, and suddenly the boxed beef trade raises a concern for domestic market product.

Sounds like there's a few bumps to iron out yet.

But blame that on BIG C for distracting from this very much thought out and organised plan.

Sorry for the sarcasm once again but it has been a tough week staving off attack after attack from people with no more of a plan than that of BIG C.
No more knowledge, and a one track mind when it comes to selling product for Cargil and Tyson.

[cswilson]

Welll this "I won't sell to those evil americans sounds protectionist to me'. Isn't it kind of hypocritical to dump on these americans who are owning cattle on feed right now. They added cash to our market-they filled pen space and paid their feed bills. I'm sure not everybody with cattle up here belongs to R-Calf. Bashing Americans really is like kicking a pig it doesn't do any good and it just irritates the pig. Our beef is in Ottawa and Washington not with our fellow ranchers across the line.

[rsomer]

Cswilson: Well said. I do agree with grassfarmer when he points out that continuing to ship live fats and feeders to the U.S. is not in our best interest long term. And I agree with the need to establish sufficient packing plant capacity for our production and optimistically suggest we even aim for capacity to slaughter some U.S. production.

Being low cost commodity producers to the U.S. will take us nowhere but being low cost commodity producers to Asia will take us nowhere either. That is where it becomes necessary to vertically integrate further up the value chain so producers can share in more net profits. Has nothing to do with testing and everything to do with owning the animal longer right up to the box.

The problem rpkaiser refers to is caused by lack of packing capacity, not choice of markets. It would not make any difference if our two packing plants were shipping all their beef to Europe or Japan instead of the U.S. They would be ripping us off anyway. Until they get some competition either from the U.S. packers by the border opening or else Canada ramps up its own packing plant capacity that problem will continue, there is nothing to keep their bids for our cattle honest.

I do not think it would even make any difference if we even reduced our cattle numbers to meet our present packing plant capacity. It is not a supply problem, it is a problem with Cargill and Tyson being monopoly buyers of our product and they will never pay us fair until that monopoly is broken or there is some effective market intervention that injects some element of fairness into pricing of live cattle.

[rsomer]

Of course it is a matter of packing plant capacity. But don't try to tell me that increasing market potential to countries other than the U.S.A. would not help the monopoly situation we are in. Cargil and Tyson are American owned companies and will not expand there market to Asia on their own. Yes America will always be our most lucrative market, but making it our ony market will only continue our dependence problem.

cswilson - it's easy to jump from one side to the other on this site. A week or two ago rsomer threatened my bull sales if I continued to show support for R-calf. My points were a lot like yours, no fight with producers, just policy.

Of course we need packing plant capacity, and I hope like hell that it comes in the form of Canadian owned packers with the guts to look outside the norm to offshore markets that do, and will have the money to compete with the Americans (Value Added or not).
The goal of the industry in Canada should be to learn from this crisis and not go back to the controling monopoly driven system that we had prior to May 20, 2003. If you want to call that an idea to protect our producers, so be it.

[grassfarmer]

Well said rsomer,"it is a problem with Cargill and Tyson being monopoly buyers of our product and they will never pay us fair until that monopoly is broken or there is some effective market intervention that injects some element of fairness into pricing of live cattle."
I stood up at a public meeting back in February and said that we had to break this packer monopoly before they broke all of us. I was shot down by the ABP representative who condemned any talk of doing that to the packers - we all had to work together and wait until the border opened. Are the ABP finally beginning to get the message?

[cswilson]

My feelings are that u don't burn all your bridges-imcreased trade to the Pacific Rim is great but I think it would be foolish in the long run to think we can totally ignore our largest trading partner and the world's richest economy. I'm afraid the sun will have set on alot of operations before any plants are up and running but we do need to start somewhere. Right now there are so many proposals right now that consultants are making a windfall-I don't think we need a packing plant every 100 miles either-there is not much rancher capital left to invest out there so it can't be diluted so many ways. How about this idea-our government provides the initial startup capital but underwrites by issuing promissary notes to ranchers who can use their cows as security-there's a heck of alot more cows out there right now than there is available cash.

[InAHurry]

I err on the side of caution. An individual or group 'going off half-cocked' is (in my opinion) not the solution either. As I have mentioned before, no-I don't have any answers. Yes I believe in increased slaughter capacity - but we can't overdo that (in numbers of). 100% testing? it has it's 's and -'s. Like it or not, we have the proverbial screw to our heads! Doesn't matter what action we take (plants or testing or new, increased export markets)the success or failure of them depends on when and how much the border opens. Those fist few days are going to be a tornado - the US buyers can't help but be up here - look at our current prices, they have alot of room to work with even if the price increases. How much of the calf and fat market will be owned by those that will or can honor the proposed/contracted destination of that meat. Very few in our industry can compete with the US $'s that will be here re however the border opens.

If's, and's / but's - I don't think we'll be smiling anytime soon.

[cswilson]

If the U.S. buys the calves and feeds them here it might not be all bad-cash for guys selling calves-customers for the feedlots-who are bleeding money bad now too.

[blackjack]

rpkaiser... keep up the good work... the only group I see pushing ahead is the BIG-C with a vision for the future... the cattle associations were not even talking about helping the producer to build packing plants until recently... when are the cowcalf producers going to wake up to the fact the trickle down a effect is just a bunch of BS...when did BIG-C become a group for burning bridges , are they not just some producers looking for new markets ... if the americans can make a buck off us they are going to want our beef... I just wish the cattle associations and Alberta government would quit using the proganda of the evil testing is going to scare the consumer away... what a novelty if the canadian producers could sell a tested BSE free product... I think the american consumer would buy it...

[blackjack]

I have to inject some thought into this thread that may be confusing to some, due in part to the stress rsomer puts on the term 100% testing.

If you read the Cam Ostercamp essay, or come to one of the meetings for BIG C you will hear talk of Mandatory testing, not 100%.

There is, of course, a difference.
BIG C is calling for madatory testing.
Mandate is defined by websters dictionary as "an official order".
BIG C is therefore looking for an "official order" to allow testing.

ABP and our dear Shirley McLellan have jumped all over this call, making it sound like a call to force BSE testing on all Packing facilities in Canada. The fear they are attempting to instill in the producers minds about costs, and slow down at plants that need to run even faster, is totally unjustified.
ABP itself as brought forward a resolution to "investigate the pros and cons of voluntary BSE testing by processors". If they found this to be part of a much larger positive solution to this crisis, would they not require a MANDATE to move ahead?

I cannot understand the actions of ABP and our AG minister to continue to make BIG C out to be uninformed renegades.
The only way out of this situation is to work together, and BIG C is, and always has been, open to that suggestion.