this is progress?

[grassfarmer]

15444,

Got to thinking more about the quota side of it. I have experience of quotas and beef - in the UK we were allocated a quota - but it was only an entitlement to subsidy quota. If you wanted to keep cows over and above that you could (no one did because it was uneconomic without the subsidy)
We were allocated this free based on previous years cow numbers, you were able to sell it to other producers.
If you were to introduce quota here and you talk of the Government buying it back to allow people to exit the industry - how to you facilitate new entrants?
It actually isn't that difficult to set up a quota system - and you can build in "ring fences" to prevent Alberta oil barons buying the quota from Saskatchewan producers for example.

The how "big is too big" question you raise about the size of beef production units is a valid one. I used to argue this one with my father often. I think quota allocation should be tied to cows per labour unit. If a guy wants to run 1000 cows and employs 5 men to do so I don't think he should be denied quota whereas a person running 300 cows single handed gets it because he is smaller.
Ensuring rural jobs and strong rural communities is a worthwhile aim and to do that we need to keep people on the land. These are all things that could be overcome if we wanted a supply management industry - my guess is that producers do not want such an industry - they dont like regulation and red tape. Believe me there would be lots of it if we moved to beef quotas.

[Bez]

Lots of healthy discussion here.

I am a pro quote guy - or at least a pro "let's explore it" guy.

In the end, there is one fact. The only continually profitable ag operations in Canada are the supply managed operations.

As for imports, exports and packers - well, that remains to be seen. If there is no exploration then we have basically been defeated before we have even taken the first step.

Just because we operate the way we do does not necessarily mean we operate in the best way. Change will always have its detractors. But change can sometimes be a good thing.

So if we are to survive with a national beef industry, I believe we absolutely MUST look at methods that will create opportunity for us. If we do not, we maintain the status quo and continue on the way we are - making money once in a while, working off farm and ranch when we have to and always at the risk of some who control the pricing game.

If we sit and argue pro and con before an actual plan has been created, how will we really know if we are / are no going in the right direction.

How many of us are now covered in grey hair? How many of us are planning to hand the operation over to the next generation? How many of us have kids that will want to take over? There are some, but the numbers dwindle.

We have to look at change for many reasons, but to me the biggest is our future. At present, we sit back and look for handouts - the only winners at this time are those who win the subsidy games.

I believe we will eventually be forced to change, or be forced out. If we go to a supply and demand system there will be initial problems. These will be ironed out. I believe supply and demand will also force one of our competitors out of the market. That competitor is the dairy guy. To me, that is not a bad thing - but it will be to some.

Just my thoughts. What is the next step?

Bez

[Horse]

15444 I dont mean for the lease holders to get out of coes persay the thing is that the oil revenue is tied to cows as you have to have cows to get lease land therefor if you are reciving 1000/2000 or more per 1/4 and are required to have a few cows to keep the money rolling in then you keep cows.

If the idea of crown land was to use the grass for cows and no oil revenue then there would be a lot less cows.

[intr3est]

BEZ, could you get ahold of me at murgen_89@hotmail.com just want to talk about some things we might get going in Ont. thanks

[kpb]

grassfarmer, your comments about quota overseas are interesting. I believe that most producers in Canada would vote for a supply management system if it was thought out and explained to them. As Bez has pointed out in a later post, the only consistently successful agricultural enterprises in Canada are supply managed. Most thinking producers would easily see this and this far out-weighs any regulations that we might have to adhere to. Also, as you have undoubtably noticed, we are adhering to more and more regulations all the time anyways and live with a beef industry that has not made money for years (including pre-BSE). Bez's point is impossible for the anti-quota advocates to argue with---the bottom line in Canadian agriculture is clearly in favor of supply management. How can anyone argue with that?


kpb

[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.