ABP Zone Meetings

[grassfarmer]

Thank you for your insight farmers-son, I will do my best to utilise it in motivating people to attend these meetings this fall.

[blackjack]

... whether we like the ABP or not they are the voice to the government...the chain is definitively changing in the commodities we raise on the farm so if the farmers want to sit back and let a few dictate there will be less cowcalf operators in the future... only have to look at the hog industry ...

[BFW]

Farmers Son, about four years ago several of the cattle industry groups joined together to form the Alberta Beef Industry Council. The groups involved realized that due to the significant changes that the beef industry in this country had undergone that we would be well served by examining how our representative organizations were structured in an effort to ensure that all elements of the production chain were represented at the table. This was done not to try and take away "control" from the cow calf producer but instead to develop a more effective industry body that would be able to meet the challenges and opportunities (little did we know) ahead in a manner that would benefit the industry as a whole. The ideas were generally well received, most notable exception being those high up in the ABP at the time. Anyway progress along the lines of what the Beef Council proposed has occurred 9though be it slow). The ABP formed the Feeder Council whose purpose is to advise the board on policy more specifically focusing on feedlot issues for example. The council elects 13 feeder members from the 9 zones across the province. Three of these feeder council members are now eligible to sit on the ABP board. The feeder council is certainly not a mechanism for the Alberta Cattlefeeders Association to gain special status within the ABP as you suggest Farmers Son. As for the Industry Council, its fate is yet to be determined. Again, better representation at the delegate and board level from a wider cross section of the industry can only be viewed as positive for ABP and the industry. I remain dismayed by the amount of paranoia displayed by so many in the industry and the thinking that if they can maintain control of the ABP they will then somehow be able to right all that is wrong. The reality is the ABP does not have (nor should it) that kind of power. It is not another level of government for industry to deal with. It should be an economic association of industry players working for the betterment of the beef industry in this province.

[cowman]

Actually farmers son the ABP is a parasite as far as I am concerned! As long as these "lobbyists" extract a mandatory checkoff from me that is exactly what I will consider them!
I sure as hell never asked for them and I sure as hell don't want or need their help!
Why do they have a mandatory checkoff? Because their policies are totally for an "elite" group that has little to do with your average cattleman. I would suggest to you that the Western Stockgrowers represents the interests of the cow/calf sector better than the ABP? However the Western Stockgrowers is a VOLUNTARY organization not a bunch of weasels who got the government to force you to pay their way?
I liked the idea of the beef council...anything to get rid of the ABP!

[farmers_son]

I am left wondering if we were an association of ship owners in the 1800s would our industry be better served if we invited a couple of the local privateers who were attacking and looting our ships to sit in and vote at our meetings. After all it would mean a wider cross section of the industry was involved and we would gain a broader industry perspective.

Of course we wouldn’t but this is exactly what is being proposed by allowing the pirate packing plants to vote at our producer organization. I am not being old fashioned or set in my ways if I suggest the packers have no business in the ABP. The packers are simply out to loot our industry and **** our producers, they are not our friend or ally and we shouldn't be in bed with them.

If our producer organization sees an advantage in forming a relationship with a packing plant I suggest they had better own the packing plant and form a value chain with that plant not invite the 2 rogue pirate American plants to vote in their organization. My opinion.

But if producers don’t attend the meetings and insist that their organization takes directions that actually are in their best interest don’t be surprised to see a couple of pictures of Cargill and Lakeside representatives grinning broadly in next years issue of the ABP Annual Report. Your new directors of the ABP.

And cowman, please don’t get so hung up on the checkoff that you forget it is still our producer organization no matter how it is funded. Our should I say it was our organization until such time as the packers get their hooks in it. I like the WSGA too but really the ABP does quite a bit more, marketing and so forth. There are WSGA people on ABP.

[pmckenna]

What BFW and Cowman converge on is true.

[BFW]

Farmers Son, I think that you could use a dose of the broader perspcetive that is being implemented in the ABP. Yor mentality is typical of that of which has held back the ABP for years. Try and look beyond the current situation. No one likes the power that the packing industry has over the production sector but it will not last forever. The role of the ABP that is representative of all facets of the industry will be to help to ensure that measures are put in place that do not allow this sort of situation to arise again. What do you see as the role of the ABP?

[BFW]

BFW - If we are truely looking at the big picture and the structure of ABP, could I ask why that initial structure has been altered from Democratic to appointed. The first step to make a Feeder council is questionable, however the second step of alloting positions to the packers simply boggles my mind.

The structure was in place for special interest groups like this to become part of ABP through the democratic process in place. Want to be a delegate, then put your name up, in your zone, etc. etc.

You are certainly right about the whole industry working toward a common goal, however which group is it that is not. Is it the group of producers who do not like the changes - or is it the folks who are profitting off the backs of those producers.

Of course we need packers, but until they start acting like they are part of the big picture why would ABP simply give them a position on any board.

Working together means working together, does it not?

[farmers_son]

That is a good question. The ABP or ACC was established with a mandatory checkoff controlled and directed by producer delegates whose sole role was to represent the interests of the producers, the people actually paying the checkoff, in their zone. Although the checkoff was non refundable and was essentially a tax, the people paying the checkoff, the producers, did control the direction those checkoff dollars were spent. One producer, one vote.

That was then. Today is different. Now it is one checkoff dollar, one vote as the feedlots argued they paid a lot of checkoff dollars got special representation. I would argue the feedlots did not pay any checkoff dollars instead deducted the checkoff from what they paid the cow calf man. I am a feedlot operator and I know I have a line on my budget for checkoff and I deduct it like any other cost. And I still vote, maybe not fair but that is how it is.

What is being proposed is a distortion of the term producer to include packers, auctions, order buyers in a new definition of producer so they can be invited onto the board and given a vote on how the producers checkoff dollars are spent. We are told this is to gain a broader perspective. The role of the ABP will have completely changed from serving the interests of producers to the interests of the industry. But the actual producers will still be the only ones paying the checkoff. Not only will producers continue to be price takers in the industry but now the industry will take their checkoff dollars and control their organization.

In hindsight the worst thing the ACC or ABP ever did was raise the checkoff. Almost overnight the ACC went from a $4 million budget to a $10 million budget and that kind of money attracted special interest groups who wanted to spend it. $10 million is a lot of money even to a packer. No doubt about it the packers want a say in how that money is spent and the direction of associated lobby and promotional efforts. The packers see the importance of the ABP, too bad the producers don't.

You suggest that inviting the packers to spend our checkoff dollars will somehow lessen the control the packers have over producers. Sorry, I don’t see that, maybe it is because I don’t have a broad perspective. I see that as long as we have nowhere else to sell our calves than to these packers they totally control us. If the ABP wants to be an industry organization the best way to do that is to assist producers to vertically integrate into the packer sector. Producers should own the packer sector not let the foreign owned packer sector come into your organization and control your destiny. Actually, I think that is the real broad perspective. I would like to buy those packer bastards out, frankly. Not invite them onto our board. The ABP should be working hard toward establishing producer packing plants and instead they inviting the American packers to vote on their board. Unbelievable.

Finally to directly answer your question, the role of any organization should be to represent the interests of those funding the organization. It should not be to represent the interests of those who don’t contribute financially. Having the pirates vote on the ABP board and thinking somehow that is going to help producers is magical thinking.

[grassfarmer]

An interesting point that a learned friend of mine and I were discussing the other night concerns the ABP/Packers and advertising issue.
We as producers pay checkoff levy to ABP - part of which advertises Alberta beef at home and around the world. Kind of strange as we are selling a raw material to the packers who add value to it and make huge profits(currently)-why should the packers not be paying anything to advertise Alberta beef? This was raised before on agriville by rpkaiser I think - does the company that makes the steel for cars/trucks pay for all the advertising that Ford motor company does? - I think not.
The point my friend and I were discussing was that in ADDITION to this cosy deal he has a suspicion that Cargill and Tyson actually get part of their company branded beef products advertising costs paid directly out of ABP funds. This will be raised at Fall producer meetings - does anyone have more info on this?

[BFW]

I see th problem with our industry (not just the ABP) of having no clearly defined picture of where we want the industry to be. This makes working together towards common goals very difficult. Farmers Son you say that the role of an organization is to serve the interests of those funding it. What are those interests? You will find that they very significantly from on end of the province to another. Many resolutions passed at the AGM's leave you puzzled as to their significance to the beef industry. I suggest that it is high time that we examine what the role of the ABP is going to be in the future and ensure that the monies that it collects yield a reasonable ROI to the shareholders.

RPKAISER, delegates to the feeder council are not appointed anymore as they were in the first year. THey go through the same process that any other person seeking a delegate position in the ABP would. The proposal for industry council as I understand it also involves elected positions.

[BFW]

BFW When you say elected, do you mean elected along side the regular Candidates. This is not how I understand it. They may be elected, but elected by putting their names up for feeder council, not general election.
I would expect industry reps would be the same.

What I am suggesting is for these special interest groups to run along side the normal candidates, and then put any title they want on their position after that. Why special treatment. Why would we not have a purbred breeders council, or a Grassroots opposition council, etc. etc.

If ABP is to be spoken of as a democratic voice of the industry, why not keep it democratic.

One more point I would like to make. I am personaly a founding member of BIG C. We have been seen by a lot of ABP folks as a boil on the ass of their group. Why is it that the government in Ottawa has a opposition. Maybe they should just call them a boil on their ass, and negate everything they say.

Sorry about that one, I do not intend to say that everything ABP does is wrong. I do however beleive that everyone in this country has a right to opinion,and if ABP does not, then drop the democracy facade and make whatever rules suit the power of the day.

[BFW]

Actually, I think that having a cow -calf council,as you are suggesting Rpkaiser, dedicated to issues directly affecting that segment of the industry would be a great idea! The goal would be to have an overarching board equitably representative of the entire industry acting on behalf of the industry. It is alright for producers (specifically cow-calf) to have a majority on this board but a strong, effective board of directors is well served by having a broader cross section of experience and opinion. Besides the democratic process will still favor the primary producer as he will hold the majority of the board seats. I do not want to belittle the democratic process but I sometimes think that when it comes to our industry associations we put to much emphasis on democracy and not enough on ensuring that we see positive returns on our investments in checkoff dollars.

[BFW]

if all Agri-ville participants that are eligible to vote at the ABP Zone meetings will pick up two or three neighbours on their way to the meetings, all those additional votes will make a difference.

[farmers_son]

Grassfarmer, you asked about advertising and promotion. Does it work? Yes. Does it benefit producers? No. Are there better places to spend that money? Certainly.

I have seen some really marvelous promotional efforts initiated by the ABP and BIC with our checkoff dollars. Unfortunately the benefits all accrue to the retailers and packers, not producers. There are many reasons for this but the best explanation I could offer is no matter how much we attempt to influence our domestic market there is an unlimited supply of offshore cattle that will quickly move in and fill any demand we are able to create. There are other reasons involving derived demand versus market demand, price elasticity at the farm gate, non functioning markets and limited competition amongst our supply chain partners, the packers and retailors. Bottom line, generic promotion of beef can never benefit the producers other than to offer them some false hope that they can somehow influence their fortunes through advertising.

But what if the money spent on promotion was instead directed towards producer owned packing plants? The proposed 2005/2006 ABP budget is $13,500,000 of which roughly $10,000,000 is for promotion of some kind or another. I think it is a fair comment to suggest those promotional dollars are mostly benefiting the packers and retailors much more than producers, if they benefit producers at all. But if that money was directed towards a producer packing plant there would direct and immediate benefits to the entire production sector. $10 million a year is a lot of money. We really can build and operate a producer owned packing plant with that kind of annual cash injection.

Would something like this ever happen? Not unless there was widespread and vocal support from producers themselves. I think the ABP is hoping producers are all worn out and don’t have the energy to attend any more meetings and demand needed changes. We will see in the next few weeks.