Is The Set Aside Working?

[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...?

[15444]

Ontario finally got its act together and implemented the program. Apparently it has been in the works for the last month, but the program sheets are only available on the Net or from the area ag rep. Seeing as how Ontario has consolidated many of the agricultural areas and gotten rid of a lot of ag reps, it is not surprising that some people don't know if Ontario is running the program. As of about mid-November, 50,000 of Ontario's alloted 115,000 calves were in the program.

Ontario's rules are the same as in Manitoba and Saskatchewan apparently. Time to look at this program twice and figure if it is worth it. Not very interested in keeping steers till Sept 1, 2005. Going to be one hell of a pile of yearlings hitting the market that week. Heifers and bulls are worth it, but steers?

[kpb]

15444, I believe you are mistaken on your view about setting aside steers. We normally buy 450 or 470 lb. steers at this time of the year (or maybe a little earlier), background them over the winter to be about 700 to 750, then grass them to 970 to 1000 lbs. in September. These calves will go on full feed in September, 2004 and not finish until January, 2005 (90 days). These are British cross calves that will not finish if you put them on full feed right away at 450 lb. weight. They need to grow first. This is a normal practice for us and other backgrounders and grassers too so I don't know why people are finding it so peculiar or hard to see why steers should be kept over. There's money in it if you manage the critters properly. I also don't see how this is going to affect future prices--you're not going to have more animals coming to market next September than what you normally have---some animals can be grassed and some can't so I don't think anyone should be worried about a big glut at any time. What I don't get is how this keeps animals off the market---the calves that are being set aside can't go to market soon anyway. That's why the prices on these little guys is as good as the non-tagged ones. This program is just a straight gift.

[grassfarmer]

As Cowman says it's amazing how many calves are being sold unclaimed here in Alberta. A neighbour sold his calves last week and only his best would be over 500lbs - he usually keeps 50% (the tailenders) until later in the spring to sell. Sold them unclaimed. Are some people in business or is it just a place to live in the country with a few pets?

[grassfarmer]

After aboutfour weeks reading on very
interesting Agri-ville some philosohy
and comments have no place at all.As
I mention before pride cowman who are
not aplying for the tac,s and mention
of we don,t need subsidie at some large
A B P meeting proof is not many tac,s are selling.Calvs bring 600 plus 200
dollars set aside.DON,T have to live on
another planet or be retard mention of
some cowman on nov 7 2004.
We to have pride in ourfeedlot operation
as there is no help at all this year on finishd fat cattle or through caisp . program. we hope!!
The border better be open again!
So after all COW -CALF MAN put your
tac,s in and run ! Good news coming to-morrow., when the big BOYS get together in
Ottowa have a nice day cowman

[15444]

kpb:

If the majority of producers keeping back their calves are just cow/calf guys, then I will bet that the September trade next fall will run short and heavy. And here is my reasoning:

I understand your point that even if those calves in the program were sold in the spring, that they would be put on grass and sold again in the fall, hence, the number of long yearlings hitting the market in the fall wouldn't change with the program in place or not.

I think this is wrong based on the fact that in both scenarios (ie those calves in program, those not), we are dealing with two levels of producers, the cow/calf and the backgrounder/grasser.

For most backgrounders I know, the time when they take their yearlings off grass varies, so in a fall market, those yearlings will be hitting the market at different times within a period of about 1&1/2 - 2 months. This evens out the marketing of such animals, and a huge glut is normally avoidable, with exceptions.

With the cow/calf guy, by Sept 2005 he has held on to those calves for 1-1&1/2 years. As soon as he is able to cash in on those yearlings, he is going to. Personally, we have the ability to background the calves and grow them out to Sept 2005, but feeding to slaughter is not an option for everyone in our area nor in others.

I guess my main point is that the calves in the program are owned by the cow/calf guy, and each cow/calf rancher (in MB, SK, ON) will have the date 'September 1, 2005' floating around in his mind when he is feeding those buggers this winter. The calves not in the program will follow the regular marketing stream in the fall of 2005.

Now none of my predictions factor in an 'open border' factor, due to the fact that such a factor would completely make my predictions worthless. Also, I have not factored in drought, in which case, the September 1st 2005 week could see record numbers of older cattle hitting the yards.

I am very interested to see what happens with the entire program when Bush visits tommorrow.