Quebec cows?

[Bez]

Grassfarmer - your comments are quite well taken I assure you - but:

Quote:

I am always appalled that the Prairie farmer seems to be totally apathetic about the plight of agriculture but at the same time I for one have no desire to live in a chicken**** republic where mob rule is the order of the day. Canada should be able to do a lot better than that. Yes Prairie farmers are suffering but resorting to the "rough them up" attitude to officialdom is not progress in my book.

End Quote

I really like your comments about "Canada should be able to do better than that". I could not agree more. Unfortunately it WILL NOT - because it does not have to. And in the end, it is not CANADA that has to do better. It is the people who make Canada the country it is today.

It is the people who supply the product who have to MAKE Canada do better. The minimum is always the standard until the bar is raised. If you are happy with the minimum - then do nothing. If you want the bar raised - then do something. That is really the answer to almost all of the questions and problems.

In the end if good men do nothing, then nothing will happen.

Bez

[Bez]

Never underestimate the power of one or two people to make a difference. In our municipalitiy one fiesty little 70 year old ladyled the charge against the local council,and got a few other people riled up which literally forced a provincial directed review of the conduct of the council. The result, three members of council got the boot in the October election. Never say never when it comes to the power of the people, even when dealing with provincial governments.

[pandiana]

Thanks Bez for reiterating my sentiments so eloquently.

Every day that goes by I can't help but wonder why farmers are willing to wait to see if just maybe they will be the last one standing when things 'turn around'. Its like sheep waiting for slaughter.

Reality is, things will not get better, or at least good enough to survive unless we make some dramatic changes in the way agriculture works in this country and North America for that matter. As long as we remain price takers at the bottom of the food-chain, we will remain without any leverage to negotiate for our industry.

Let's face it...life style can account for only so much!

[cakadu]

Do you think it comes down to a reluctance to change? Change is always difficult no matter who has to do the changing or why the change has come about.

Agriculture isn't immune to the changes that are happening out there - many of them so fast that it boggles the mind some days. The timelines for change are shrinking as well. When you look at a continuum, in 30 years, we saw more changes than in the past 300 years; now we see more changes in 3 years than we did at any previous time.

Emrald, your point is a good one. It takes one person to start it, but once others get involved, it gains momentum and that is how things happen.

For varied reasons, there is great reluctance to change in agriculture - we've seen it coming for years, yet we appear to want to keep it the way it was. We went from a grazing management type of scenario to the feedlot one of today. There are a growing number who are moving back to the grazing management way of doing things with positive results, less costs and more coming back to them. Swath grazing, rotational grazing, having the cows move to the feed versus taking the feed to them are all part of lowering costs.

Pandiana is right - way of life does factor into it for so many people, but that is not what pays the bills and puts food on the table. It seems that the more food production is becoming a business, the less we are capable of embracing that reality. We should be rewarding those that are willing to take risks - be it in a producer owned plant, direct marketing or what have you - because they are taking risks, often times with great rewards attached to them. Even if they don't work out as planned, at least the attempt is there.

[cakadu]

I think that the vast majority of people will talk about what is wrong, want to see changes but when it comes to taking the bull by the horns they are reluctant to do so for varying reasons. I do think that many of our younger farmers are more apt to speak out and suggest alternative ways of doing things.

[grassfarmer]

Before we all jump on the bandwagon and become revolting peasants I think we need to clear up a few points in this debate.
#1 Are you prepared to resort to strong-arm tactics against consumers for not paying enough for their food or is it only to bully more welfare payments from the Government?
#2 How would this affect trade with other countries - will you go down the road of hijacking and burning products coming in from the US for example? If so what are the implications of such action?
#3 Does the UPA or any proposed Western group with the same agenda pose a threat to transnational corporations the size and power of Cargill, Tyson or is it a case of UPA being the big fish in a small tank?
Don't get me wrong agriculture needs to change in Canada but I just don't think changing it by violence and civil disorder is the way ahead in the 21st Century.

[Bez]

Grassfarmer - your comments are to a certain extent - valid.

However, if you want a better price for your animal - then demand it. Make it happen. Block the doors to Tyson and Cargill. Watch what happens. There will be heck to pay - but, if you do nothing but talk with them - well, they will simply talk back. And the game will continue and they will win. This is exactly what THEY hope you will do.

If you do not hit them in the only place they will understand - their bank account - then you are the loser - NOT them. This scares them, because shareholders demand profits from their companies.

It is a matter of pure economics - nothing more and nothing less.

It is fine to sit down and say civil disobedience is a bad thing - but by not doing anything - it allows them to pay you what THEY want to pay.

If you have a better idea, I am all ears - but do not pull out the "negotiate with them" card. And do not pull out the "it'll get better" card. That along with the governments help will keep us in our place.

I simply use the example of the UPA. Why not write the prez and talk to him? They are far better off than any ag operator in trhe remainder of Canada.

In the end, most all of you folks will keep on with the status quo because you do not think like someone who is ready to "go down swinging". Yet.

So here is my last comment - have to go wean the babies - If you managed to block the doors for a month - do you think the other side would come to the table with the same attitude they approached the federal inquiry - or the way they treat you now - or would they come "seriously" looking to solve the problem?

You OWN the pie. Unfortunately an outside influence controls whether or not you actually get to eat it.

Bez

[Horse]

Bez I surly do congratulate you on your posts I have been saying the same thing for years but I think getting farmers together is a lot harder than hearding cats
A good example of the apathy in this country is the atatude of just wait till the border opens, since Bushs visit the coffe room talk is all the border will open in 3-5 mo and things will be just fine , all the talk of more packing plants will go away and we are back to being screwed.
Mabey I shouldnt care as I have pretty well got out of the cattle business but I still have land to do something with and after 40 yr I hate to think it was all for nothing.

I dont want ot point fingers but thier are a lot of farmers out there that make thier living out in the oil patch and use farming as a tax dodge and to build up a nice operation for thier retirement and as long as we have those people speaking for us things wont change but who has enough time to get involved besides those with the big pay cheque.

[grassfarmer]

Bez, I would be interested in your replies to my #1 and #2 questions as well if you have time.

[Bez]

Hi Grassfarmer - your questions:

Quote

#1 Are you prepared to resort to strong-arm tactics against consumers for not paying enough for their food or is it only to bully more welfare payments from the Government?
#2 How would this affect trade with other countries - will you go down the road of hijacking and burning products coming in from the US for example? If so what are the implications of such action?

end quote

#1 - I had not thought there was any strong arm tactics against the consumer. Having spent a lot of time working in Europe last year to keep the home place running, I did notice food was more expensive. But the Euro is well above the U.S. dollar. It seems to me that food prices do not run in accordance with commodity pricing - the price of food (IMO) runs on what the processor / manufacturer thinks the public purse will bear. All with the thought to maximize profit - not a bad thing - just the way it is.

If the company that buys your product is the only game in town and refuses to pay a price that will meet your production cost it leads me to believe they actually are making a serious attempt at forcing you to "work under contract for them". Control is power - they have it all at this time. Certainly like to think it will not always be so.

By working under the premise that they can control the price of the commodity and at the same time dictate the price the consumer pays - they can maximize profits while controlling both ends of the equation. Actually VERY smart business practise. Keeps the shareholder happy. Simply put - it is business.

A little like the old share cropper philosophy - make them work hard enough to produce what we need - but keep them poor enough - by making them shop at the company store - that they cannot make any real changes to their lifestyle, or make any substantial / practical improvements to their operation. As long as the producer keeps producing and just getting by then the processor wins.

So in the end, the producer could never set the price for the consumer - unless it is at farm gate. Only the processor can set the price the consumer pays.

I am not sure what you mean by strong arm tactics to gain more welfare money from the government. Are you stating that money we receive is welfare? Not trying to answer a question with a question - just do not know what you mean.

If you DO mean money to us is welfare - well I do not like accepting handouts from the various government agencies. I am sure I am not alone in this opinion. I have always said that if I / we received a fair price for what we produce, we would never have to go to the well for money.

Historically the cattleman does not go begging for money and has not done so in many years. Certainly WTO has stated we are subsidized at a very low level and could have those subsidies increased with no penalty. Granted the U.S. of A. disagrees with this, but that is probably another can of wormms we could open at a later sate.

#2 - I am under the impression that all countries that have had a similar economic situation as ours also have labour disputes and internal problems. Eventually they get solved and the world returns to normal.

I cannot see how this is going to affect trade with the U.S. or other countries. On a scale of one to ten it sure doesn't rate on the Richter Scale as compared to promoting turning off the oil and gas taps, or shutting down the lumber businesses. If anything, T & C will have to come to the table if only to keep their shareholders happy. It would not take them very long - profit is key to keeping shareholders and business partners happy.

I have not advocated "hijacking and burning products" coming in from other countries and never would. I have a sneaky suspicion you are attempting to throw a strawman at me.

If I am correct in this thought, and I truly hope I am not, then I am sorry you would attempt to trip me up. You see, I once was not one to advocate the talk I am now talking - but it has been successful in other parts of the country.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and I am tired of those who would sit back and let others go down - possibly licking their lips in the anticipation.

Forgive my comments if I am wrong in my thoughts.

This country cannot survive without imports. The rest of the question therefore does not require further input.

So - while my answers may not be to your liking - the fact is that a good business operation will maximize profits. T & C have done this. At the expense of the person who produces the one product that need to be profitable. (I know they do chicken and hogs - but I think you get my drift)

As I said before - the producer owns the pie - but the processor is the person who decides when the producer can eat that pie. Somehow that does not seem right to me.

In closing, all cattle sorted today - all calves got their final booster and moved into their new homes for the winter. Mother and son / daughter are calling to one another - loud and clear - and the symphony of mooing is loud. Music to my ears.

Hope this all comes across fairly clear - I am absolutely beat - did not proof read so I hope there are not too many typos - after midnight now - off to bed.

Bez

[cakadu]

Bez, I think you make one very important point and that is the one about people waiting for risk takers to fail. I've used the analogy before - it is like the lobsters and the pot of water. After the lobsters are all thrown in, one of them tries to climb out. Instead of helping the brave one to escape, they pull him back in and ask "where are you going?"

We are moving to an entrepreneurial mindset and more people are doing things outside of the status quo which are great strides forward. For some reason though, we hate to see someone else succeed where we maybe have failed or been too afraid to try. Maybe one day we will get to the stage where we are risk takers instead of risk averse.

It would be such a shame to have the border open and we take a step backward in terms of building more Canadian packing capacity and finding new markets. I know that a few have worked very hard to accomplish those goals and they are to be commended for their ongoing efforts.

[JD4ME]

I did a little checking and in Alberta the counterpart to the UPA is called Wild Rose Agricultural Producers.I called one of the directors tonight and he said that Alberta farmers aren't even willing to support this group well enough through buying memberships so that they can sit as full members of the canadian federation of agriculture with the other provincial farm organizations like UPA though that may be changing. He said they don't qualify as a single commodity organization for a Prov. checkoff as they represent a wide range of AG. Policy. He was well aware of what the UPA can do and said they actually take a tax on farm income in Quebec and are hugely well funded and powerful both in Quebec but also Ottawa. He said in Alberta we like to get all divided up into our own little group and that way nobody can generate any momentum on issues also said things are looked at very European in Quebec and thats a whole different mindset than what we have here. But he said they know how to play the political game and lobby hugely effectively. He emtioned the head of the UPA was coming to their convention in early January to speak I thought it might be interesting especially after this.