ABP Zone Meetings

[BFW]

I know some of the folks who represent the Feeder side of the industry as delegates to ABP, and they are hard working fellows trying to make a living just like the rest of us.

[cowman]

emerald: Well I don't attend or support the ABP, because simply I don't believe they should exist. I am forced into paying the checkoff to an organization that I believe works against my best interests. Did my best to get rid of them back when they had a vote on keeping the checkoff mandatory, but obviously that didn't work out and slightly more than 6% of producers decided to keep the checkoff...in other words about 12% of eligible producers botherd to vote!
What can you do? Nothing will change and the apathy will always be there. I guess a person just has to accept the fact you have aquired another permanent parasite in your life and learn to live with it?

[farmers_son]

The ABP is not another parasite that we just learn to live with and ignore. The ABP represents us whether we like how they do it or not. As such the policies and directions of the ABP do impact each and every beef producer. The ABP depends upon producer apathy to allow them to pursue policies and directions that they know do not represent the views of producers. By not participating producers are allowing control of their industry to be taken over by others who do not have their interests first and foremost.

It would be naive to believe that a few cannot influence the many. In the last year the Alberta Cattle Feeders (which for all intents and purposes is the mega feedlots) have gained special status within the Alberta Beef Producers. As a special interest group they have guaranteed delegate positions within each zone and guaranteed seats on the board of directors. Working as a cohesive group within the larger group they are influential far beyond what their numbers might suggest.

It is the same with the packers on the Board of Directors. If you are arguing what difference would 2 packer representatives make on a board of 19 or 20, it actually can make a very real difference. Certainly the potential exists for the 2 packer reps to sit on the executive committee as chair and finance chairman and directly control the direction of the ABP. More likely they would exert their influence in other ways as they have a direct economic stranglehold on many of the individual directors.

Utlimately the checkoff is paid by the cow calf operator. The feedlots just deduct the checkoff from what they pay for weaned calves and when it comes to the packers we don’t want to even think about what they are deducting from what they are paying. Producer apathy can be counted upon again this fall as producers sit at home and watch control of the ABP slip away from them as they pay higher and higher checkoffs with less and less control over how that money is directed.

BFW: the broader "industry" perspective you speak of is the feedlot and packers perspective. Just witness how much of the Government programs/handouts that were developed in conjunction with the ABP have gone to the feedlots and the packers and how little has gone to the cow calf operator and you will see what the "broader perspective" does. We are talking about Billions of dollars going to a handful of feedlots operators and packers. I have read these threads enough to know you represent the feedlots. Well I am a feedlot operator too but I am not a friend of the packers and the mega feedlots they are in bed with. They don’t represent me. I choose to not be a member of the Alberta Cattle Feeders and there are lots of smaller feedlots who want no part of the politics of the mega feedlots.

To reiterate my point, the ABP is proposing a change at this falls meetings to allow "industry reps" 2 seats at the Board of the ABP. These two seats will go to the packers or be controlled by the packers indirectly. Once the change is approved producers will have no opportunity to influence who is sitting in these two chairs. I believe this is outrageous given the actions of the packers during the BSE crisis. It may offer a broader perspective but it won’t be the producers perspective. Have we forgotten it is the producer who is paying the bills and is at the end of the rope when every one else passes their costs down the line?

[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.