Plant Updates MB

[magpie]

Neepawa Chosen As Location For New Beef Slaughter Facility
2004-11-26
By: AM 1250/Lite 96.7 FM News



Natural Prairie Beef Incorporated has picked Neepawa to be the site of its 9 million dollar slaughter facility. The company is affiliated with Saskatchewan's Natural Valley Farms, whose plant is currently under construction. Once the Saskatchewan plant is complete, an identical plant will be constructed at Neepawa. Spokesperson Kelly Penner says the 2 plant's combined yearly capacity will be substantial. He says between the 2 plants there will be the capacity to slaughter 100,000 head per shift. They will all be processed and fabricated at a separate plant in Wolseley, Saskatchewan. Penner says it is targeted to be the largest Canadian supply of natural beef. Penner notes natural beef is not certified organic, rather the cattle do not receive antibiotics or horomones after being weaned. He says the Neepawa plant will employ 40 people, and should be operational some time in 2006.

[magpie]

Full steam ahead for Ranchers’ Choice


By Cindy McKay
Friday January 07, 2005

Interlake Spectator — News that the Canada-United States border will re-open to live cattle under 30 months is welcomed by directors of a fledgling Dauphin slaughter plant expected to be operational in the spring.
Ranchers’ Choice Beef Co-op is behind the $16-million plant.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) said Dec. 29 that the border would re-open March 7.
“It’s a positive thing,” co-op president David Reykdal said. “They will let the younger animals across and provide another outlet for our beef production.”
The co-op is putting out tenders for the reconstruction of a building and equipment it acquired from an American packing plant. The packing plant, built in 1998 specifically for processing cows and bulls, is ideal for the Ranchers’ Choice operation as it’s already set up to handle the 200-head-per-day capacity the co-op proposes.
The plant comes with its own water treatment system and had been approved by the USDA. That is expected to give the co-op a leg-up as it seeks certification by the Canadian Federal Inspection Agency. The CFIA certification as a federally-inspected plant would allow the co-op to sell its product anywhere in Canada.
“We are setting up an office in Dauphin and we are laying out where the building is going to go and get the contracts out to start work,” Reykdal said from his home office in Ashern.

[magpie]

January 2005 (P058)

BSE: Disaster or Opportunity?
By Donald Orchard


In Brief:


The BSE problem is not going away. The beef industry should start testing every Canadian animal.
The main problem is that testing means all our cattle must be slaughtered here.
Testing therefore creates strong incentives for expanded domestic processing.
Excellent markets await superior Canadian beef products, especially if testing eliminates risk.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The detection of a second case of BSE in as many weeks could derail the planned opening of the U.S. border to live cattle, and could weaken the stellar support of Canadian consumers for our beef. Before we wallow in another round of despair, perhaps we should think about ways to turn this disaster to our advantage. Let’s take the lead and turn the tables by mandating that each and every animal be tested for BSE.

One objection to such a mandate is the high cost, about $40 per animal. But ask any beef producer who is now losing $400 to $800 per animal if that cost is too high. It’s a price we should be willing to pay to restore confidence. Moreover, mandatory testing would increase volumes and those costs would fall dramatically. Companies like MDS Laboratories of Toronto, with leading-edge medical testing technologies, have significantly reduced the costs of laboratory testing in the Canadian healthcare system. If this company or others developed automated BSE testing, costs and turn-around times would drop dramatically and traceability will be guaranteed.

Our beef industry should demand BSE testing of all slaughter animals. That leads us to the main objection. Canada would also have to ban exports of non-tested beef as a food safety issue. Since BSE testing is done only post-mortem, this would effectively end live cattle exports to the U.S. Traditionally, we have relied on live cattle exports because we don’t have adequate slaughter capacity at home. The two major killing plants in Alberta are American-owned with the advantage of corporate access to the U.S. supply network. Canadian investors are reluctant to build the needed capacity in Canada for two reasons: economies of scale and predatory pricing.

Large U.S. plants enjoy lower labour costs and hence lower operating costs. To run these giant plants at capacity, the final 5 to 10 percent are often purchased in Canada at a premium price, with these higher prices spread over the 90 to 95 percent of local purchases. If new Canadian capacity were built, a year of predatory pricing by U.S. killing plants might bankrupt the new operations. This has discouraged Canadian slaughter plant investment, but a total ban on live exports would stimulate it because the plants would be assured of the animal numbers required to run the new plants at capacity.

Tested Canadian beef would find new and expanded markets in Japan and the whole Pacific Rim. Canadian beef would replace U.S., Australian and Argentinian beef in major world markets, as these countries are unwilling to mandate testing. Indeed, demands by American consumers for safe beef could make the U.S. the biggest importer. It would be nearly impossible for the U.S. to close the border to tested Canadian beef. Making Canadian beef the “best and tested”, unique in the world market place, would ensure the future growth of export markets where the customer is “always right.”

Some say that mandatory testing will discover more cases of BSE and therefore damage the reputation of Canadian beef. Not so, as positive animals will never enter the food chain with mandatory testing. It also represents a radical departure from past business practices, where Canada simply rolls over to American trade policy. An independent policy could ensure Canadian beef producers a bright, growing future. Canada’s already favourable reputation as a reliable trading partner would be further strengthened.

These changes would cement consumer confidence in the very real advantages of Canadian cattle. Our beef herd is one of the healthiest and best in the world. Today’s producers are very sophisticated managers. Economic pressure long ago eliminated marginal producers, and those left are the best of the best. Families have spent decades and generations improving herd genetics to the point where all major breeds, whether British (Hereford, Angus) or European (Charolais, Simmental), are better in Canada than in their countries of origin.

Our temperate climate with its short growing season produces forage and feed grains of extremely high quality. Producers capture this burst of growth by using the newest process technologies and machinery, so the cattle herd thrives year round on our short summer growth binge. Combining this feed quality with superior genetics gives consumers the best quality red meat in the world. Just try beef in a sub-tropical climate – the Texas Longhorn T-Bone, for example – to taste the superiority of Canadian beef.

Other solutions to the BSE crisis fall short. A forced downsizing of the Canadian herd by killing and burying older animals – culling, for short – seems inappropriate in a hungry world and would be a policy disaster for the world’s best beef industry. To kill off thousands of healthy cows that represent years of genetic improvement to remove a potential handful of BSE positives is an incredible waste and far more expensive than testing. Further, this proposed cull offers no assurance of a U.S. border re-opened to live cattle.

Mandatory testing to solve the BSE crisis will establish a unique Canadian identity and differentiate ourselves from Americans. It’s time for industry and political leadership on the issue to set a new course. A Canadian approach that mandates testing, and therefore processing here, will increase slaughter capacity, expand export markets and give Canadian beef producers a hopeful future. Let’s turn adversity into opportunity.

The Honourable Donald Orchard farms at Miami, Manitoba. He was the Member of the Legislative Assembly for the constituency of Pembina for 18 years. He has held ministerial portfolios in Health, Transportation and Energy.



Related Items:

Canadian cattlemen use NAFTA rules to pry open the American border.
For more on agricultural issues . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent public policy think tank whose mission is "to broaden the debate on our future through public policy research and education and to explore positive changes within our public institutions that support economic growth and opportunity."





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Top

FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY - Suite 25 Lombard Concourse, One Lombard Place, Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3B 0X3, Tel: (204) 957-1567 Fax: (204) 957-1570, E-mail: newideas@fcpp.org



Now this kind of thinking should have happened after our first case. I think we should now explore ways to protect our new found packing industry and our Canadian Identity.

[WoolyBear]

""Large U.S. plants enjoy lower labour costs and hence lower operating costs.""

Something that a smaller plant should be able to enjoy by NOT being a larger plant, if they pay a respectable wage is to have a lower staff turnover. Look at the western plants and Maple Leaf in Brandon, they are having to look at imported labor from Mexico, and other Latin American countries, and now Maple Leaf is claiming that they may even have to go to the former Soviet Bloc countries to find "cheap labour".

The plants in Dauphin, and Neepawa and the like can be real community builders if they choose to stay a reasonable size and treat their employees like "partners" in the process. This can be a real positive thing..........

[intr3est]

Just wanted to add, that I think that the Canadian producer will see the long term benefits now of Loyalty to the producer owned plant and not with short term gains of selling to the larger packers just to make a little more income in the short term.

[cowman]

I'm a little confused here? I thought Ranchers Choice had given up on the idea of trucking the building up to Manitoba? From the article it seems that is not the case?
From the first article where the sokesperson says the two plants will be able to process 100,000 head every shift? I assume that is a typo...or else they will need every animal in Canada and the US!

[BruceC]

I think that the 2 plants will harvest 100,000 per shift per year
Running 50 weeks =1000per plant per week or 200 per day . This could be increased by adding a second shift at one or both plant in the future
Bruce C

[magpie]

Phoned office of ranchers choice today trying to get info on whether they are building new or going with the plant in Washington , they said they will be planning a press release for end of next week.

[countryguy]

From what I understand,Ranchers choice is building a new building but still buying the equipment from Washington.Apparently the building there had a part of it that was old and unsuitable to move.It had a problem,either mold or asbestos insulation or something like that,I just forget exactly.