Is The Set Aside Working?

[gwf]

It was interesting to see a lot of 100 steer calves sell on the TEAM today for $1.16 for 525 weight(I hope I have the right lot). It was announced at sale time that the calves carried the set aside tags. This producer did very well with $609 from the sale and $200 from the program. We sold Bred Hfrs in the same sale for about the same money.

[Cedar]

How is this possible? Where were these calves sold? The way I understood it, if we put in the set aside tags, we can't sell them for a set amount of time, i.e. here in Manitoba we can't sell them until Sept of 2005 (and they can't go for slaughter until Jan. of 2006).

[15444]

Cedar,

The way I understand it, the calves can be sold at any time but can't be slaughtered till Jan 2006. That seems to be the set date in every province. I don't understand the September 2005 date though. Maybe it means a person can't sell fats to the packer until that date? I have no idea. But as with all government programs, I doubt there is anybody that is going to understand it inside and out? Regardless, do you think the feds or provinces give a crap about how many hands touch the set-aside calves? As long as the tag numbers don't show up in the database until January 2006, then the plan is a success as it will shut the farmers up for the winter?

[Cedar]

15444:

I was told by someone who should know exactly how it works that we CANNOT sell them...period....(in MB) before Sept, 2005, and even then we must obtain from the buyer a written statement that they will not go for slaughter before Jan., 2006. So, that would mean we can't sell the fats to the packer until Jan, 06...not even as a private beef sale!...ugh....so much for grassfed!!!... ouch! No...I really can't imagine why any of the "powers that be" would give a crap about how many hands touch these animals along the chain....that's why I'm puzzled (as well as...well, maybe just a wee tad ticked...)that we absolutely have got to hang on to them until Sept of 2005...that's just plumb loco from where I'm sittin'!!! I can't see why it makes any difference who the heck owns them between now and then....as long as they don't go into the foodchain until the deadline (pretty much TWO winters from now!)

[grassfarmer]

gfw is correct in telling you how the scheme works here in Alberta. From day 1 it has always been clear that you were able to sell set-aside calves to someone else as long as they sign a form showing they won't slaughter them before 1st October 2005 which is the length of the setaside period in Alberta. Essentially what has happened here is anyone participating has tagged their replacement heifers and bulls plus some small or late born calves. I personally have tagged replacement heifers, bulls and a few fall calves as well as a handful of later born small spring calves that I plan to sell in a couple of weeks. So has the scheme worked? - it will in theory put money in producers hands but it doesn't look like it will pull any fat cattle off the market next Fall. Maybe if Alberta had done it the MB way and set a 1st January date for slaughter it would have worked better but I think people just wouldn't have used the scheme if that were the case.

[grassfarmer]

I would tend to agree with you grassfarmer,,,,,,, In a functional market close to 40% of any given years calf crop would not reach slaughter weight until October of the following year anyway. Maybe this will be a sidestep from some sort of antidumping tarrif that the Americans would have put on us had the government simply ageed to an $80.00 per calf payment across the board. OR maybe the extra few million it costs to administer the program satisfied the need for more involvment by our dear government.

Either way, calf prices are more than we expected last summer, but still no where near the cost of production plus profit.

Like Gerry said,$809.00 per calf is pretty good money, no doubt under this fellows average for his whole calf crop, but substantial none the less.

Is it the set aside program, or once again optimistic speculation like we had last fall,,,,, hard to say.

[kpb]

Cedar, There have been several sales that I have seen of set-aside calves on the TEAM weekly sale and, I assume, through other auctions. Only one person is able to claim the set-aside money (the producer) but the calves can be sold and re-sold after that--at least in Alberta. And, as to price, I normally buy calves at this time to background and grass next summer so whether or not the calves have set-aside tags in their ears is of no consequence to me. And, I would assume, the same applies to other backgrounders and grassers. These little British cross calves would not finish before next fall or early winter anyway and need some time to grow on the grass. So I can't see why there would ever be a discount on these calves--they were going to grass anyway. This program is just a government gift--beats me how it delays the slaughter of any animal.

[grassfarmer]

I was interested by Cedars comments and checked out the different provinces programs. They are quite different. Alberta is paying $200 on eligible calves with the set-aside period ending 1st October 05.
BC is paying $200 for January 1st 06 release with the option of $176 for October 1st release.
Saskatchewan is paying $200 for Jan 1st release and $160 for October 1st release.
Manitoba is paying $200 for January 1st release but the calves must not be sold by the tagger until September 05 (even to another feeder). It seems Manitoba backgrounders can claim 30% of their calves as well - regardless of whether they calve a cow or not. Interesting, I wonder how much strength this has added to the light weight calf trade?

[cakadu]

Grassfarmer, in all your searching I don't suppose you came across any set aside for species other than cattle?

I've not heard of anything even in the works for sheep, or other species. Even if the border does open back up, with the higher Cdn dollar, there will be fewer lambs going across because of the economics, as has been discussed in other threads. No wonder so many sheep producers are just dumping whole flocks.

[grassfarmer]

No, I saw no mention of sheep but again the set-aside for cattle is in theory to hold cattle until more slaughter capacity comes on line. I expect plants that kill sheep will be busy too but it seems to me the sheep producer is more dependant on the border opening than the cattle producer. Also it appears to me that the sheep industry in Canada is teetering on the brink with very little infrastructure in place to market or process the animals. Apart from catering to local niche markets I see little point in maintaining a sheep industry in a country where you will always be a very high cost producer due to the length of feeding period and predator problems. In the hills of Scotland you can produce lambs with no hand feeding of the sheep on land that is too poor to suppport cattle - and the Scots are high cost producers compared to the Cairns countries. How do you compete with that?

[grassfarmer]

good point grassfarmer, although I do think that some folks with smaller land holdings and likely not facilities for cattle have opted to have sheep. Not many in my area of the province, and there never has been.
A lot of bison around though. They are supposed to be maintenance free but by the look of the fancy creep feeders and hay bales all over the place they take a bit of work and input costs as well.

[cakadu]

Yes, you are quite right about the sheep farmer and the border - if you're in the commercial sheep business. The sheep industry is far more dependent of that US border than even the cattle industry and it seems to me that I've read that well over 90% of our sheep production goes to the US, which is in large part due to the competition of "cheap" lamb being allowed into the country.

There is no doubt that sheep production costs are high and certainly far higher than those that you speak of in Scotland and countries like Australia and New Zealand, which is where the bulk of the imports come from.

The sheep industry in Canada, in some respects, is many years behind the other countries in terms of management practices etc. Where we also get hurt is in the other countries the sheep tend to serve a dual purpose in that they produce higher quality wool and the by-product being lamb. Here our primary product is lamb and the by-product is essentially wool. Wool production and lamb production are generally negatively correlated and we don't have many of the finer wooled breeds here in Canada i.e. Merino etc.

Given that the lamb industry is SO dependent on an open border, you would think that the organizations that represent us would be making far more noise than their beef counterparts, but sadly such is not the case.

It would appear as though the other ruminant species will be left to figure it out on their own.

[grassfarmer]

I would suggest you leave the wool production to the southern hemisphere countries Cakadu, the breeds that suit wool production best like hot weather not cold. Besides if you need to feed hay to sheep 8 months of the year there is going to be so much junk in the wool it will be worthless.
Wool used to pay either the shepherd's wages or the farm rent in Scotland depending how old a guy tells you the story. We used to joke laterally that wool only paid the shepherds "dog maintanence allowance". If you paid custom shearers you were left with nothing. Man made fibres have reduced the global market for wool so much that I don't expect ever to see it worth real money again.
My guess is if there is a future for Canadian sheep it will be to supply the ethnic market in Toronto and Vancouver - if you could produce it very cheap. That is the way it has gone in the UK with few people under 60 eating lamb, the ethnic communities eat all the old culls and the good young product goes to France where they really do like lamb. Is Quebec big on lamb consumption?

[cakadu]

Biggest reason why we don't raise wool sheep is the relatively high maintenance costs on them. Our sheep are strictly for meat production.

There is a lot of lamb that goes into Montreal, now whether it is for the ethnic populations or more eat it there, I'm not really sure.

I have to agree with you about the wool and the synthetic fibres thing, but having said that, there is still nothing like a good wool suit or a wool sweater.

Some sheep producers have moved to a grass based system, which does tend to cut down on costs a lot and for which our sheep are very well suited. Problem here is that they try to get lambs to market weight in 120 days or less and that really puts the pressure on both the ewes and the lambs to perform well. The other thing is that there are breeds that give multiple births - 3, 4 5 or more lambs at a time, which creates a major bunch of work for the shepherd. Plus, many lamb in the colder months, which also means buildings, extra labor etc.

Does anyone know if germ plasm - embryos, semen etc. - is able to be shipped? I know that for a time it was stopped, but has there been a resumption of it?

[cowman]

It seems to me the calf set aside is pretty much a no brainer, but then it works better in Alberta than Sask. or Manitoba. Don't know if they even have it in the rest of Canada?
I would be just a wee bit leery of entering the program if I lived in Sask. or Manitoba? I mean Jan. 1,2006? If the border opens you've got it made but if it doesn't you might take a real bath on these cattle?
I find it amazing that a lot of calves are still hitting the market that shouldn't be? Little 400 pounders with NO RFID tags!
I always figure it is better to take the money when it is offered rather than try to over analyze the situation? Sort of the thing about a bird in the hand...?