More sales barn closures in Ontario

[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...

[kato]

This'll make presort sales interesting. They'll have to make an extra sort for the tagged calves.

I guess if you were a fall calfer, and then grassed your calves as a routine, this would work perfectly. They would probably not be gone until after Jan 1/06 anyway. Take the money and run.

For us, I don't think it's going to work. No way we can hold them that long. They'd eat up 200 dollars long before their time was up. We can have the 2005 calves pushing a thousand pounds by Jan 2006, sure don't want the 2004 calves to still be around then.

Sure, we like our cattle, but not that much! LOL

[BFW]

Blackjack, I would think it would be a no brainer for a feedlot that is now receiving $20.00/cwt ($270.00/hd) more for fats to invest $150.00/hd more in feeder cattle at least if they thought that these price levels could be sustained and that they have a reasonable amount of working capital left to operate with. The rumor of and subsequent announcement of the fat cattle set-a-side program has also played a large part in the recent runup in both fat and feeder prices as it should result in more predictible prices being paid for the finished animals. Blackjack, not all the feedlots are struggling despite what you hear or read and unlike the fat cattle market the feeder cattle market remains very competitive especially when supplies are short and above all remember that feedlots HATE missing out on a loss opportunity.

[blackjack]

BFW...why did Canfax say just a short month ago there was going to be a glut of fats this fall...that does seem odd now ...last year the fat price went in the tank when the government got involved who's to say that won't happen again... if the industry blows this one with the taxpayer we will have no one to blame but ourselves...

[BFW]

In my opinion the main reason that the fats went in the tank was that the way the government structured the program (against the industries advice) by saying that the program would end either when the money ran out or when the border opened to either to muscle cuts or live animals. The fact that that there was a finite amount of money available created the a huge incentive for people to sell their fats while there was still money available in the program and thus the packers took advantage of the producers extreme willingness to sell as they expected the program to pick up the shortfall. this program does not require that the producer sell his calves to collect the money which should mean that it will be more market neutral. As for the Canfax prediction of a glut of fats this fall I expect that that will be the case as the grass yearlings begin to come to market after a short stint in the feedlot along with a lot of the other cattle that have been coasting along in various retained ownership programs. Hopefully the fat cattle set-a-side program will allow these cattle to be slaughtered in a more orderly fashion than has been the case resulting in higher prices paid to the feeder for finished cattle and ultimately translating into higher prices for calves and feeder cattle. Again this program may not be perfect but it is far better than doing nothing and I think we should commend the government and industry people that designed it.