let me get this straight

[Cattleman]

Quota systems are in federal jurisdiction, and are usually assigned by where the people are. I did some quick calcuations, and estimated 1 animal could feed about 8.5 people, using per capita consumption at 35 kgs/person of actual meat. Now in Saskatchewan, there would only need to be about 125,000 cows. This would be slightly more than 10% of the cows there. If they assign quota on your current holding of cattle, if you had a herd of 200 cows, you would get 20 or so cows. I don't think the economic situation would look any better with this scenario. Also, if you did a cost plus guarantee for these producers, it would shoot the price of beef up, and consumption down, reducing herd sizes even more!
I am not sure what the ratio of people to cows is in Alberta, but I don't think it would be much different than Sask.
As for other suggestions as to what to do, that is a good question. Feedlots and backgrounders play the margin game and are buying at prices that work at current slaughter prices, so it leaves the cow-calf producers squeezed.
Slaughter capacity is being built, and will be coming on line, next years calf crop will be hitting a more competitive slaughter market and prices should reflect that. I think reducing cash costs is important, and getting cows through on the bare minimum is also important. Depending on your position, riding this out may not look so bad.
You also have to look longer term and look at your business, and see the critical points you face. If it looks bad, why not integrate, and see what you could do with some unique marketing opportunities such as direct marketing or working with feedlots to deliver what they want.

[kpb]

rp kaiser
thanks for replying to my thread. I fully support your idea of a producer-owned packing plant and will do everything I can to back it. I'm assuming you become an ABP delegate--how much support in the ABP is there, do you think, for this plan and how soon do you think such a plant could be started? I have already lobbied our local MP and MLA to provide support and shelter to a domestic packing plant and will continue to apply pressure. I believe this is essential, as you know from previous posts. I also believe that other industry changes are need but will give you every support I can to get a plant--and concurrent legislation--in place. Good luck, kpb.
As to cs wilson, i'm not sure why he wants to get to know me personally--is it something I said?

[Cattleman]

Has anyone considered community herds? Such that one producer may look after a few different herd during the winter allowing to work or at least save money. I know it is tough especially at calving, but simply not having so much over heads, such as each person running their tractor or shreader, when several farmers could just do with one. Also on the marketing side, if the group has similar genetics, there might be quite a good package of calves that could be offered up....or even better, as part of the group, finish them yourself!!?

[cswilson]

Listen kbp why won't you let us know the scope of your operation I just want to know where you are coming from-you can b.s the fans but not the players-your reluctance to answer puts a big warning flag up in my mind.

[kpb]

Cattleman, can I get you to re-work your numbers with the assumption that provinces that produce beef will be able to process the animal and ship the beef to the major metropolitain areas like Toronto and Montreal? I stand to be corrected here and would appreciate you telling me if my numbers are wrong but I think we consume about 50 to 60% of the beef we produce, nationally.I appreciate your suggestions on how we can manage our way through some difficult times in the near term. I think one of the provincial ag dept. should put together a list of the sorts of things you suggested.
How about this for a possible working scenario? The numbers may be wrong here but I think the concept is workable. Let's assume our cow herd is around 5 million breds. Let's get the feds and provs to commit to a downsizing program of $2 billion. If they give each producer $1,000 for each of his breds we can downsize 2 million bred animals (phased in most likely). Ok, so how many producers would take $1,000 for each of their breds and then retire?? I don't know, maybe the figure would have to be higher.
The program would be voluntary of course. Would you get the numbers of ranchers wanting to quit?? I don't know that either but it's a starting point for discussion.
Now $2 billion is a lot of taxpayers money I grant you but consider that the spring program from the feds was said to cost $954 million. I think that the taxpayer would pay $2 billion to a retirement fund for retiring ranchers if they knew it was a one-shot deal, that the industry would be made secure and profitable for those left and that their beef would come from Canadian producers. I don't think they're going to find it palatable to keep giving us handouts.
Like I said, I don't have all the answers, just throwing out a few ideas that I don't think we've been thinking much about.
And cs wilson, I don't know why you've got such a hate on for me. I'm not bs-ing, as you say, anyone. These are just ideas, my friend, and I'm just putting these up here to let people think about things a bit. For goodness sake, we haven't had a whole lot of different ideas in the last 18 months, have we? I'm not a threat to you so I don't know why you're so exercised about me. I told you before, I earn my entire living directly from the cattle industry and I mean as a rancher not something else. I don't think I want to tell you more because I'm not sure how it is relevant and would ask you to evaluate, criticize, suggest or whatever new ideas or thoughts based on what I've presented not on something else. I'd like to hear your criticisms and, more important, your own ideas about how we're going to get through this if the border doesn't open for a long time. You know, believe it or not, we are all in the same boat here and I'm really just trying to give people a few new ideas to chew on. Is it so bad to have a different alternative rather than the old party lines we are so used to hearing?

[kato]

It's one week before the U.S. election. After that, then the stalling tactics will either be over, or we will be able to face the fact that it's not going to open. Right this minute, the uncertainty of it all is our biggest stumbling block to getting on with our lives.

For instance, our new plant in Manitoba is soooo close to being a reality, but the Manitoba government is stalling. Official line is "What happens when the border opens? Will producers still deliver cattle to the plant?" Our own government is playing the game! They hope that if they stall long enough, they won't have to put out any money. We don't even have access to the set aside tags yet, and that's because they go ahead hasn't been given by the government as to what colour buttons they will have on the backs! If that's not stalling, nothing is.

If we just knew what is going to happen in the next few weeks, we would face the future with a much clearer picture. I believe that once the uncertainty is gone and the commitment is made to move forward, we can save this industry, and make it stronger.

I'm with rpkaiser on this one...we need the domestically owned plants,but we also need a government that will help to protect them. I think the government is a bigger obstacle than the plants.

As soon as the market starts to turn around, a lot of downsizing is going to happen, government assisted or not. There are a lot of people out there with small herds, who have gotten into cattle over the past few years because times were good. I know more than a couple of these. They have off farm jobs, and sideline cattle. They want out...and they want out now. Let them get their investments back and they will be gone. They and the ones who's retirement plans were extended due to the loss of equity.

Those left will be leaner, meaner, and a lot smarter than they were before.

[cswilson]

kbp I don't know where you got this paranoia about me hating you I've asked you four simple questions that you seem very reluctant to answer-I'm curious as to why you won't. I think your an older producer whose trying to get out with as much government money as he can milk-I might be wrong but that's what I'll assume as you keep being evasive.

[cswilson]

This last idea of yours makes a bit more sense than supply management-I think cowman and I both suggested a mass cull last fall would of made alot of sense-the price you receive could be graduated by how many cows you cull and whether you exit the industry permanently-I just don't know what is going to fill the economic vacum left by losing 50 percent of our cow numbers.

[Cattleman]

I also agree a mass cull may be a good strategy, as it will help the industry and is a good opportunity for exit. As for more questions about quota allocation, I don't really want to go there as it is a very political issue....and we see what happens to political issues......they don't always make the most sense!!!
I would like to point out that the government has to be careful when dealing with these mass culls. Not so much for beef industry image, but because of the messages it is sending the industry. The governments are in favour of increased capacity, and want industry to build it....if they have a mass cull of 2 million cows....it takes all the incentive away from building a plant, because there will not be enough animals there. So I think you have to take one stand or another....mass cull OR increase slaughter capacity...slaughter capacity is slower, but I think it is short term pain for long term gain....
I also agree some things may become more obvious within a few months after the election

[kpb]

I agree with both cs wilson and Cattleman that a mass cull would stabilize our industry. cs wilson also brings up the idea of a graduated scale that would pay more for ranchers who left the industry which would be a good way for people facing economic hardship to get a graceful way out.
I felt that if we had a mass cull, then worked to serve just our domestic markets with a quota cap on what was left so we don't get into this oversupply mess again, then those of us left would have a secure future. Now I'm wondering if we would need a quota system after a mass cull--do you think the market would be efficient in the sense that we wouldn't go back to over-producing if we still had no export markets to speak of? Or would we continue to chase after foreign markets and end up, eventually, where we are now, with a huge dependence on an outside source?
Cattleman, from an optics point of view I can see that the government wouldn't want a mass cull but I don't see them doing much to encourage a domestic packing industry. As far as the election south of the border, I don't think it matters much who wins--I don't think there is the political will down there to open the border.
cs wilson, I now understand the relevance of your questions and can assure you that, short of being forced out for some reason, I will not be getting rid of my herd. I'm 49 with 3 kids under 12 years old so I've hopefully got a few years ahead of me.