BIC-C policy

[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.

[InAHurry]

Copied from the 'Beef Stoker Trends" newsletter (email version)

" "If we find a case of BSE and it turns out to be native-born, it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. If it happens, it should be, 'so what?' " DeHaven says. "In terms of public health, by removing Specific Risk Materials from the food supply we have already done the single most important thing we can do to protect public health."

Sure wish they would view Canada's with the same "so what?'.

[kato]

Could it be that ABP and your Ag Minister are worried that BIG-C will succeed? The status quo is a comfortable place to be for those who aren't suffering from all this.

There is however, one way to eliminate packer ownership of feeders, and that is not to sell them any feeders.

Years ago it was more common to feed your cattle out rather than sell calves, at least in Manitoba. It has come back to that again for a lot of my neighbours, including myself. Once the border opens, we may just keep finishing them, and not sell calves any more.

Could be a decent situation, with fats being worth more due to competition from down south, and for those who absolutely cannot keep their calves, prices better due to less calves on the market.

I think if the border doesn't open to feeders, we will still see better calf prices, and an expansion of feeding in Canada. The biggest question is who will be the owners of those calves.

In the immediate future, we are going to need a lot of cash just to pull ourselves back from the edge of the cliff, so in all honesty we can't be too choosy about who writes the cheque. The important thing in the short term is that there IS a cheque!

In the long term, we have to remember the last year, though, and get down to the business of making sure we don't get blasted like that ever again.

[bnyoung]

This is a really stupid question, you folks keep mentioning BIG C. Who or what is BIC C. Would someone please let me know.

[bnyoung]

BIG C is the Beef Initiative Group Canada.

The group was formed after reading and listening to an essay written by Cam Ostercamp, a cow calf producer from Blackie AB.

Essay is on line at www.costercamp.org

Mission Statement :
The Beef Initiative Group is a spearhead organization designed to put primary beef producers into a leadership position to help solve existing trade barriers with the United States by expanding economic opportunities outside of North America and improving the Canadian industries overall competitive position. BIG C is seeking the sustained prosperity of the Canadian industry and improved competitiveness in export markets.

With 2 grassroots meeting under our belts, and at least 10 to 15 more planned in the next few weeks, we plan to travel across at least Western Canada
collecting ideas, and seeking support for 4 major goals.

* BSE testing tailored to the specific standards of each individual export market.

* Diversify export markets for Canadian beef to reduce the unbalanced trade reliance on the U.S.

* Begin IMMEDIATE development of Canadian owned slaughter and packing facilities to rebuild our Canadian owned infrustructure.

* Redirect Canadian tax money being poured into the industry, through ineffective support programs, towards capitol projects which will improve industry competitiveness.

Any other questions call
Randy Kaiser (403) 946 - 0228

[rsomer]

Kato: as usual, insightful comments. I think all the ag ministers, provincial and federal want very much to see a solution to the BSE crisis.

Rpkaiser: I did not threaten your bull sales if you continued to show support for R-Calf. I said and I quote "I am frankly astounded at your views on R-Calf. You may want to reconsider those views since you are selling breeding stock to the Alberta livestock producer." Although that thread is corrupted now and your actual comments are missing you were expressing quite a bit of support for R-Calf and R-Calf is a dirty word in many producers books. I am sorry if you thought I took personal exception to your statements, I did not. I have seen quite a few comments in these threads where Canadian producers were advocating not purchasing breeding animals or genetics from known R-Calf supporters, that is all.

I noted rpkaiser’s advice to reread Cam Ostercamp’s essay but found it has been deleted from Lee Gunderson’s web site. Upon review, Cam Ostercamp is definitely advocating 100% testing, the term mandatory testing and 100% testing are used interchangeably. Grassfarmer has pointed out when used in the context of Japan, 100% testing means testing every live animal, even calves so young the test cannot possibly detect BSE. Ostercamp clearly wants mandatory testing of all animals slaughtered.

On a cheerier note, got a nice shower tonight. It is needed and very welcome. Just finished seeding a quarter section to grass so the moisture will help get it off to a good start. Guess I still see a future in cattle if I am seeding grass.

[grassfarmer]

BIG-C (Beef Initiative Group-Canada)is a group founded in Alberta in recent weeks based on information contained in the essays of Cam Ostercamp, a rancher from Blackie, AB. Cam has produced an excellent analysis of the beef industry in Canada and outlines how our industry is on the brink due to an over reliance on the US as our only market. He sees a chance to increase our beef markets worldwide by thinking differently. The essay is available at
"www.costercamp.org" There is currently a campaign of rallies being held across the country by the BIG-C to promote this way of thinking. Producers should take the opportunity to hear someone with a vision and ideas for the industries future wellbeing. Please support this campaign - don't sit back and believe the "border will open soon" as Speller always says, this may be something to do with the fact they are struggling in the election polls? We must get some positive action going in this industry now to have any chance of getting bearable calf prices in the Fall. I for one have given up waiting for politicians to help us out.

[grassfarmer]

Okay rsomer I se where you are going with this.

Yes Ostercamp clearly wants testing of all animals destined for markets that want testing done. However he, or we, are not saying that Canada should mandate 100% testing of all animals slaughtered in Canada period. (As the fear monguering ABP boys would have people beleive). Only those destined for export markets that ask for it.

Are we on the same page now?

[grassfarmer]

I must type too slow, rpkaiser beat me to it!
rsomer, you quote me as pointing out "when used in the context of Japan, 100% testing means testing every live animal, even calves so young the test cannot possibly detect BSE."
The only reason my name, Japan and 100% testing came up in the same thread were to refute your point that a long list of European countries were testing 100% and Japan still wasn't buying their beef when in fact as far as I know Japan is the only country in the world testing all their domestic production.

[rsomer]

grassfarmer: That is true but it is also true that Japan has never imported any beef from any country that has had a BSE positive. Many European countries test 100% of their over 24 months of age cattle yet Japan does not allow imports of their tested product. Japan is importing just about all its beef from Australia, a country that tests only 500 head a year and as a result hasn’t found a positive case. Even within Japan there is not universal support for 100% testing as many point out the science does not support it and no test can detect BSE in under bovine animals under 24 months of age. Removal of SRMs provides the real food safety, not the test. A trading nation like Japan may someday rue the day that it undermined science-based trading rules.

Prior to May 20 Canadian beef exports to Japan totaled just under 20,000 tonnes in the year to March 2003 -- some 3.7 percent of Japanese beef imports, not the 25% claimed by Cam Ostercamp. How soon we forget... In July of 2003, prior to the Washington Holstein in December, Japan went as far as saying that American beef will not be accepted into the Japanese market unless it can be determined that it is not of Canadian origin. That ban on American beef was extended two months to September 1. At that time the U.S. was still BSE free. It is very, very optimistic to believe that Japan will accept any imports of Canadian beef tested or not. Certainly there is no reason to believe our level of imports would rise about the 3.7 percent market share we had before BSE.

Where we do have an opportunity to expand our sales of beef is to Mexico. During the first quarter of 2004 Canadian exports to Mexico were 160% of previous years. And Mexico was not demanding tests. Exports to the little country of Macau has exceeded all expectations as beef is transhipped through Macau to China. These countries are not requiring tests of our beef as they recognize the science and the miminal risk status of Canada.

However as producers we are not seeing an economic benefit from these exports and we won’t until the monopoly Cargill and Tyson Foods has in our market is broken. It will be no different if the exports were to Japan, Asia or Europe. Canada was dependent on the U.S. for more than live cattle sales, we were dependent upon the U.S. to provide competition in our meat packing industry. Canada has no rules on packer ownership of cattle or any effective controls on Cargill and Tyson conspiring to artificially control our beef industry. The Parliamentary committee looking into excessive packer profits was easily stopped by the Conservatives before any effective measures could be taken.

Diversifying our markets, while good, will not provide more packing space or fairness in our packing industry. If our beef industry groups wanted to pursue a policy that would make a genuine difference in the short term it would be to lobby our federal government for policies that would see the excessive packer profits roped in and corralled. Building packing plants to provide competition takes too much time. In the short term governments cannot continue to pour billions into agriculture that all get diverted to the packing plants through artificially low prices paid to producers. Our federal government has the tools to restore fairness in our beef industry. It is about high time that happened. Whether that involves price controls of some kind that may be what it takes. We need an immediate market intervention and we need it now. BIG C is just blowing smoke when they are talking test 100% or mandatory test or whatever term is in vogue at the next rally. That provides no solution at all until 2 years from now when more packing plant capacity it built, if then. We need this fixed right now. The packers can still get a real good profit but they don’t have to take all the profit. If Cargill and Tyson were paying a fair price for our cattle there would be enough money in the industry for everyone to survive until such time as we work through this BSE crisis.

There has been too much talk about test 100%. And there has been too much time spent waiting for the border to open. There is not time to save our industry by building more packing plants even though that provides a longer term solution. It is time that government stepped into the marketplace and stopped the BS. And believe you me they can do it. And I can tell you something else. A Conservative government will not do it. They are made that clear when they stopped the packers from getting fined for not opening their books to Parliament.

[rsomer]

Exactly right rsomer, too much talk about 100% testing. Who the hell is doing all the talking? Why is there such a need for you and the other radicals at ABP to tear down a grassroots producer group based on one of the principles of the group. Never admit that opening new markets will change the monopoly Cargil and Tyson have, so long as that opening involves testing!!!!!!!!
Of course we need to change things right now. Of course, of course of course. How many times do you need to be told that you are right.
Keep hammering away about solutions, but continue to try to destroy the credibility of anyone who disagrees with you.

By continueing to stick with your mainstream ideas, you have put yourself in a very vulnerable position, as you have told us.

Most of the founding members of BIG C are hurting as well, but most have also looked outside the box, and created markets in a world you would have us beleive none exists. Yes these markets are SO FAR domestic, however export markets do exist, and we need policy change to supply those markets immediately.

I hope you come out and challenge BIG C at the next meeting rsomer, your 100% testing offensive might make you feel above the crowd, but I doubt it.

This past week has been nothing but talk from ABP about testing. Why not focus on the positives that you all talk of and put the badge back on your chests. Attacking BIG C is only making more and more primary producers suspicious of your ultimate goals.