this is progress?

[grassfarmer]

Being a recent beef producer here I can't really know how producers would vote if this were put to a plebicite (if ABP elections are anything to go by you might be lucky to get 7% of producers voting!)I just can't see western producers going for it - Quebec would, Ontario? but certainly not Alberta this would be fought tooth and nail by ABP and the Alberta Government presumably - on the grounds of being a socialist and anti-capitalist idea.

One point about moving to supply management - in the present dairy set up they are all farming full time given the secure income they receive - do you expect a supply managed beef industry to consist of full time producers or will there still be room for the 30 cow oilfield workers? Are they deserving of a quota allocation like everyone else?

[dalek]

I like the idea of supply management. Heck, I owe almost $500,000 on dairy quota and I'll be paying on it for another 9 years. However, I think there's a better than even chance that supply management will be lost or traded away before I make that last payment.
Supply management in beef is worth a try, but supply management depends 100% on closing borders to imports. Good luck with that. The only reason supply management still exists in dairy and feathers is because it existed pre-trade agreements and was grandfathered in, but with the tariffs falling it's a matter of when supply management ends, not if.
15444, Bez, you'll probably agree with me that in Ontario now, cow-calf producers are almost exclusively in two camps. Those with off-farm jobs to pay for the farming, or those who "farm" to hide money from the off-farm jobs. There are a lot of good people working long hours to try to make the farm work, but there are also a lot of people who are only farming because their accountant says having 10 cows will let him stretch the truth enough to make that $50,000, farm-plated truck they drive to and from work a business expense. We need to find ways to swing the pendulum in favour of the former. On a strictly personal opinion, the cow-calf industry in Ontario needs to join the other sectors in having MANDATORY quality control (LMEP, SOPs, etc.). From talking to people with more pull in the industry, I think the only reason it hasn't happened is opposition from those who think it would make too much work to get their tax deductions and benefits that their accountants manage to finagle out of their being a "farmer". We need to find ways to direct those benefits to the people that are serious about the industry. BTW when I took my dairy LMEP, the instructor told me that he was teaching the beef and hog courses as well. 95% of producers were passing the hog and dairy courses, only 45% were passing the beef course, and I've seen the beef course, it's just the dairy one without milk withdrawals.

[cakadu]

Grassfarmer, what is the prevailing attitude towards farmers in the U.K.? How are they perceived i.e. do many feel that they can do without farmers and import everything, or is there an attitude of having them on the land is important?

In the perceived epicentre of the universe much of the attitude is that we don't need farmers.

In the US, there is definitely an attitude of the farmers perceived importance, so that is something that we don't really have up here.

We have been very fortunate that the Canadian consumer has stuck by everyone during the prolonged beef meltdown - how could we translate that to a more generally accepting attitude?

[15444]

Grassfarmer,

Yes, ‘weak spined’ could definitely be applied to CCA and ABP and you can assume that I would direct it to every farm organization in Canada, although I had already brought that up in a different thread. Although I understand you are probably a member of NFU and proud of it, I throw the term ‘weak spined’ at NFU because the only thing worse then a organization not coming up with long term solutions (CCA), is one that comes up with solutions and has no actual way of instating them or getting them instated. Not only that, but NFU’s ideas are so far out in left field, it’s not even funny. Half of their ideas in their 16 point plan include hindering free enterprise (of input companies, retailers and global corporations) in this country, something which most people, and definitely government is not for? So already, NFU has created an aura around itself that it’s ideas are not only expensive, but are against the very principles that both Canada and the US are based on?

One of the problems that we have to face in this country is that we are a country of compromise in a world that fights hard and dirty? Everyone wants to limit the power that the transnational corporations have on the packing industry in this country, but you have to realize that will never happen,..that’s just now how North America works? There is a reason the US is against Communism? I am not talking about supply management for the cattle industry...although I hope an supply managed initiative could get the backing of the feedlot sector. I am talking about uniting the cow/calf sector, as that is who controls the raw product. So really, of 3% of the population of those involved in the agriculture industry, I would only have to convince about 10% of that 3% of them. I know that there are a lot of ranchers against the quota system. My goal is to introduce my proposal to the industry and let them do what they want with it. It may get absolutely passed by in favour of a freemarket system, but if the industry takes a turn for the worst, no one can say that there isn’t a proposed plan available for a supply managed system.

You asked about the facilitation of new entrants. New entrants or expansions would have to rely on the quota already in the system - minus the 2% taken out every year by the government each year.

Example? A total of 130,000 units of quota are available for purchase in one particular year. At 2% of quota elimination, we will say that 120,000 units are eliminated from the system to facilitate national herd reduction. That means 10,000 units are available to be re-distributed in the system through expansion and new entrants.

I don’t think there should be ‘ring fences’ blocking potential buyers from certain provinces, but once again, that is a roundtable discussion question. If there is a lot of red tape in a potential beef supply managed industry, then is will be put there by a government who doesn’t know what to do or how the system is actually designed. As long as producers don’t intentionally produce additional cows for the free market for which they do not have quota for, then I don’t see the need for a lot of hefty red tape regulations.

[15444]

Grassfarmer,

I don’t expect that a supply managed industry would be composed entirely of full-time producers, although that is another option up for debate in roundtable discussions.

Dalek,

Mandatory quality control is a great idea. I am one of the approx. 600 Ontario producers who took the Quality Starts Here Program a few years ago. Didn’t teach me much I didn’t already know or have implemented on my operation, but I definitely see the benefit in the program. Yes, it would help us rid the Ontario industry of the weekend players and tax avoiders.

[nicolaas]

What about drought years? I see a flaw in setting this up as some producers buy and sell cows to suit their pasture availability from year to year. Are these producers going to be screwed on the initial quota allotment? COnditions are alot more varied out west then it is in the east in terms of rainfall. Another thing, how are we to keep up with the cost of living if we cannot expand? Do you seriously expect to raise the price of beef enough, (and have the consumer pay for it)--they will just end up becoming vegans or switching to pork. If I am stuck at say 400 head of cows, and my next generation is stuck as well, what kind of living is that? It will become just like the dairy/poultry industry where only a CHOSEN few will be able to enter the industry 10 years down the road. Do we really want to become like those industries where the price of quota ever escalates, the big get bigger and richer (all based on a bogus quota that does not actually hold any "real value" but what you can include in your assets?) while the small guys get squeezed out? Another thing, if new quota does come up for sale, do the existing producers get first dibs like the dairy/poultry sector gets now (seems sort of corrupt to me)? As it stands now, I could not milk cows even if I wanted to due to this practice and the ridiculous cost. On another note, what about the grain farmer - is he going to get screwed now because we just cut by 1/2 his domestic market for his feed grains? I guess he should go to supply management too and bankrupt Canada? What about our jobs related to the agriculture industry - the packing plants, feed stores, fertilizer,farm supply store etc. Not much use for the existing numbers of these things if we are in supply management and limiting our growth. It seems like a nice thing, to be quaranteed an income and everyone lives happily ever after... but if you are small, you will be driven out after a generation anyways (look at the dairy industry with high quota prices) and in the end we will end up with the same situation you were trying to prevent in the first place- namely a few big players in the market (though they will be awfully rich), though I guess you would have saved yourself for the short term. A better use of our energy should be to build packing plants, and TEST everything for export to anyplace that will take our beef. That is the only way to save this industry, maintain it's independence and integrity, as well as allowing producers more flexability. Times are tough now, some won't make it, but I will not support a change that takes away a persons freedom in a country like canada to get into farming if he wants to.

[15444]

Wow, thanks for all the questions nicolaas! This is going to take some time too answer, so forgive me if I don't respond for a while.

[15444]

I will just respond to your questions I read them. Quotas are based on initial cowherd inventory, can’t make exceptions otherwise I guarantee you that you’ll have guys that sold their herds 4 months prior to the system start-up who would argue they should be included. That being said, the entire system will be publicized for some time leading up to the initial inventory count, so producers could simply purchase cows (bred,open,cull) and hold them until the count is sent it and the 3rd party check is made.

Well, I personally don’t think most producers make major herd expansions every year to keep up with cost of living? Typically you produce as much beef per acre as you can, and unless you own a bank...land expansion can be a bit of a problem? If you really need to expand in a given year, then I advise that you watch the available quota market or look around to neighbours who might want to sell out or free up some quota money. This lead into your next question about preference in the dairy industry and it’s quota. There would be absolutely no preference on the quota market,..everything sold to the highest bidder in buyer to seller situations or could be free in the situation of a father handing over quota to his son.

How will this effect the grain industry? Could have different effects. As the cowherd goes down, calf supply goes down, and the price of both rises. As price for beef rises, it is up to grain producers top decide whether or not they adjust their feed grain prices. OR it could be as simple as you think and grain producers won’t find a market for their feed grain due to fewer cattle numbers. At this point, let me remind you that my focus is for stabilizing the beef industry, not the grain industry (i.e. my interests are based around beef farmers, not grain farmers). This also applies to the supply industry...how many producers do you know that won’t apply fertilizer this spring or buy minerals/salt/grain because cows aren’t worth it? I know tons. Remember, if farmers have money, they will spend it.

If there were no small players left in the industry anymore, it would be a result of their choosing, not because they were forced out. When quota can be transferred through the generations without being placed on the open market, family farms will survive. But if the next generation doesn’t want to continue, then you can’t blame the system if the quota gets sold.

Your solution is common with most producers in that it involves packing plants and testing, something that will never be ok with the government because ‘the science doesn’t support having to go that way.’ I can’t blame the government for not investing in packing plants as there are no guarantees to long term survival. They will never limit the ability of the global packers to quickly outbid and kill the plants as soon as they start running.

Think I covered most of you questions...if I didn’t, then point them out to me again.

[nicolaas]

If a quota came in farmers would loose their fexability to match their land with conditions from year/year. During wet years, and the grass looks good, now a guy can buy some grassers to graze the excess. Or he could put up hay/silage and buy some feeders. That would not be an option if supply management came into effect. Or maybe a grainfarmer wants to aftermath graze, or graze 3rd year fescue sod prior to reseeding, etc. He would loose that option to possibley utilize that resource. On another note, the way I see the future of this industry, there is going to be a lot more cattle being raised in the next 10 years due to the high cost of machinery for grain farming. The only way to facilitate these farmers as more of them diversify is to make sure they have the option of raising livestock of some form. They can't raise chickens, they can't raise dairy cows, are we to say they can't raise beef cows now? Tough luck guys, but you missed the boat? These guys have been hurting from low commodity prices for years. This BSE thing is currently causing a big shakeup in our industry, but limiting our industries future growth to the size of Canada's population, not the size of the future export market, is not going to help us farmers in the long term, and is a waste of our potential. It may work for in the short term, but your kids could very well be out of luck. And the end result is that the number of people in agriculture will still decrease (while the ones remaining get bigger) quota or not. We got to keep pressure on the government to develop other markets. Do anything to get these - test, outlaw implants, etc. In the past our leaders have had it too easy with the U.S. market. Though they should have known BSE will be found here, they were content to live with the status-quo. In hindsight it was a stupid position to be in. We knew we were over a barrel with the States taking most of our beef, but we let the good times roll, and went along with our leaders for the easy money ride. We didn't demand more from them, and they did not spend our money that wisely - promoted beef well at home, but not elsewhere. It's now the producers train wreck to fix, but let's not make any rash decisions that could affect the future of farming on the prairies unless it is in a positive way. The same goes for the East.

[dferguson]

Just a couple questions.What is the population of Alberta? What percentage of the beef produced in Alberta is consumed in Alberta? What will happen to the exess beef? I would assume that other province's producers will have quota allocated to them based on their population and production. While I agree that a supply managed beef industry would be a good thing,I think it would be difficult,if not impossible,to implement it at this stage.

[nicolaas]

I just thought of another point. Where do all the dairy cattle culls, calves fit in? If they are allowed slaughter quota for those animals, would that not amount to double dipping?

[nicolaas]

Alberta exports approximately 60% of the beef produced, and we produce about 60% of the beef in Canada.

[dferguson]

When you say 60 percent is exported, I take it you mean out of Canada? What prcentage is sent out of province to rest of Canada?

[15444]

nicholaas, you have to quit thinking that the quota applies to calves, it doesn't. If a guy wants to grass 100 calves one year and 500 the next, he can. I am talking about managing the number of BEEF COWS, in Canada. Anyone can do anything they want with any # of calves at any given time. That's why I said that this really only needs the support of the cow/calf man because he is the one who will be controlling how much he produces for the entire chain.

The dairy issue with culls and calves? I would like to find a way to keep dairy cattle out of the slaughter system altogether because they shouldn't be allowed to produce a 2nd commodity in my mind. They produce milk, we produce beef, end of story. But again, this is a very touchy subject that would have to be answered in discussions.

This whole supply management solution is one option. I want to heat the other options if the US closes its borders to UTM beef? Lots say find new markets, which is an idea...but we can only ship beef to those countries that will accept it? So how do we totally divert all the UTM beef going to the States to a bunch of other countries quickly, so that prices don't totally collapse again? Government has said no on the testing issue a million times already. This is turning into a bad game of pictionary....keep on shouting the same idea for the answer, keep getting told that it isn't the answer, but keep shouting it anyways.

[grassfarmer]

15444,You say of the NFU "because the only thing worse then a organization not coming up with long term solutions (CCA), is one that comes up with solutions and has no actual way of instating them or getting them instated."
So how will you get your plan instated?
welcome to the real world - the world where lots of disjointed farm groups have zero power in influencing Government.
Cutting numbers of cows by supply management to force up prices will simply not work unless you address the real problem we are facing today - value theft from the production chain my monopolies. You dismiss the need to tackle these monopoly players or interfere with " markets forces" but unless you do that you are wasting your breath. I'll let you get on with your campaign now but let me leave you with a parting though - again highlighted by the NFU.

In 1975 a loaf of bread cost 43 cents - the farmer got 5 cents and the millers, bakers and grocers took 38 cents. Today the farmer still receives 5 cents but the other players collect $1.35. We need to get 10 cents for the farmer but under the current system that is not happening. What we need is market intervention by Government to make sure the farmer gets a fair return. The farmer could easily be paid 10 cents out of a $1.40 loaf but it means the monopolies running the intermediate stages must be tackled. If they are super efficient like all these corporations are claimed to be they should have no problem producing a loaf today for a $1.30 rather than $1.35 - that's still way more than they got in 1975 (which was 38 cents). After all the farmer has survived on the same 5 cents a loaf for 30 years!
Unless you accept and see what the problem is you can't come up with solutions. Good luck anyway.