More sales barn closures in Ontario

[cowman]

Excellent point cowman. Looks to me as if this thing is somewhat based on integrity. We all know how that integrity thing worked in the last set aside program; trading cattle etc. I guess if it doesn't involve cashing in on another producers back like most of the other bailout money........ go for it.

[cswilson]

Cowman I think they'll probably resort to the same archaic way they identified the set aside cattle last summer-a 'Brand'. It's funny whenever the kaka hits the fan out come the hair detectives to sort things out. I agree with the idea completely of the I.D. tags but the @#$^^&*&$##$^*$% things just don't stay in. I've picked every make, model and size off the ground. Case in point I bought 100 slickhided heifers last spring(really smart in retrospect). They all had the proper tags when we branded-by breeding we replaced some-more at preg test-more again at calving. In the event of a disease outbreak as far as anybody knows those heifers that last tags came from my place. There's thousands of arguments against branding but the irrefutable truth is-if done right (we clip first) it is permanent and readable.

[grassfarmer]

Cowman, I've no idea how they intend to enforce this program but I assume some level of accountability will be insisted on by the AB government at least - they supposidly did checks on the last schemes didn't they? I mean checking on individual farmers of course not at the real thieves Cargill and Tyson - that would have been too easy.
Cswilson, I don't know why people have such problems with tag loss. We put in allflex tags on the calves at birth
(medium size ones) and have lost less than 1% thus far. The RFID's are so much better too as they don't have a dangle part. We had this problem in the UK as well when compulsory tagging came in first and there are definately 4 or 5 tags that have 98-99% retention if properly applied. I think in the case of your purchased cattle that lose tags you are supposed to note that down and the fact you replaced it with one of your own. In case of a trace back this information would help out.

[grassfarmer]

BFW, As you say the rules don't look too clear as yet on the calf hold over scheme but rule 7. "Who is eligible to receive payment on these animals?" says
"Owners of eligible animals who are Alberta taxpayers are eligible to receive payment under this program." I guess if a feedlot buys a small calf that hasn't already been entered in the scheme they are now the owner of an eligable animal. Looking again I note it says that it may be necessary to enter as much as 40% of 2004 calf crop in this scheme - no mention of limiting it to 40% of an individual producers output. This could make it look a very different scheme if feedlots can cash in directly. Lot's of questions for Alberta Ag on Monday morning!.

[cswilson]

So I make a note when I replace the tag but what good does it do unless the original owners brand is on it. I'm sire CFIA is going to buy the story that this animal with only my brand and my tag came from somewhere else. We buy cattle from quite a few guys and you can't tell me they allput tags in wrong. Maybe I'm a dinasaur here but never had a brand fall off yet.

[cswilson]

Some calves are going through the markets now, possibly the feedlots will pay a few cents more if they are the 'owners' that can claim the $200.00
It would have been nice if all the details would have been announced with the program. The way it is worded producers aren't sure if they will be getting $200 on 40% of their calf crop if they hold them over, or whether the 40% means that the program is cut off once 40% of the calf population are enrolled....

[BFW]

Even if the feedlot is eligible to set-a-side some of the calves that they have purchased already it would not amount to many head (remember you have to hold them back a year) and most calves that have traded would be heavier calves and positioned to go on to full feed fairly quickly. I know I won't be enrolling any of my calves just to collect the $200 even if they are eligible and I don't think that they should be either. My biggest concern is how will I as a buyer be able to identify which calves offered for sale are in the program as on certain weights of cattle having a restricted marketing date on them will effect whether or not we will want to own these calves or not. I don't think just a tag is good enough as they can be removed or fall out. Ithink a permanent mark (a brand ) should be required as was in the fat cattle set-a-side program last year.

[BFW]

A neighbour is selling 200 calves on Tuesday, and he is estimating that they will average around 710 on the steers, so holding them over would really mean a discount at the packer, as they could easily be finished by April/May of 05.
My guess is that lots of the producers that calve early will not be enrolling in the program.

[grassfarmer]

Which I suppose is fair enough. If the idea is to hold 40% of the calves back obviously it suits the later born and poorer early born ones. Your friend hopefully will benefit from selling into a feeder market with less cattle on it leading to stable or maybe higher prices.

[blackjack]

kato... it is very interesting how fat prices rose 20 cents/ hundred weight in the last 3 weeks... what I find interesting is how the feedlots all of a sudden that are struggling have found 150 $ a head to buy yearlings... maybe BFW can answer one...