this is progress?

[Bez]

So, do we keep operating the same way as we always have?

New slaughter capacity is fine - if and when it comes on line. Another year or two? Yeah, a couple are up - but not the numbers needed.

Where are the new markets for this additional slaughter capacity?

The answer is we cannot keep operating like Gramps did - otherwise we go down - slow but sure that is the way it goes.
Surely the naysayers can at least LOOK at new and different ways.

So far it appears there are a few who are quite content to maintain the status quo, critique any new thoughts and yet they are not prepared to offer up ideas - How about it?

Instead of saying something cannot be done - give us an idea. As an old boss used to say - "when you come to me with a problem, bring me at least two potential solutions".

Bez

[kpb]

Bez is absolutely right--as I said earlier the ideas put forward by 15444 are worth putting forward to all beef producers to see what they think. Grassfarmer you basically say that you think the supply management idea put forward by 15444 is unrealistic, then go on to say that the control of our ag industry by middlemen needs to be curtailed. Talk about unrealistic!! Do you really think the government is going to do anything and I mean anything about the multi-national packing plants, let alone big retail outlets, etc.
What evidence have you seen in the last two years that makes you think there is a hope in H. that the Cargills, Tysons, etc. will ever be controlled by anyone? Jeez the government was even afraid to get them to open their books.
At least the idea of supply management has a model already working in Canada so I don't think it's unrealistic at all.
Nicolas, you seem to be mostly concerned about fluctuating cattle numbers based on moisture conditions--as someone who pastures grassers every year I don't see that changing at all--why would it change the number of steers I bought? That has nothing to do with supply management of the cattle herd. Right now we buy the number of steers needed to eat the amount of grass we have and that varies year to year. So what difference does a quota of cows make to that?
As to your second point about this hurting new or small entrants I will say to you that if current conditions continue, no one will want to get into this industry full time and it will only be made up of hobby farmers. Don't expect to ever be taken seriously if that happens and don't expect to ever be able to make a profit because the price of your commodity will always be the price that the guy who is willing to absorb the biggest loss is willing to take. That guy will be a hobby farmer with off-farm income who doesn't care if he makes money or not.


kpb

[nicolaas]

I just believe that a quota system will not keep more people on the land in the long term. For example,there is less and less farmers in the dairy industry as the years go on, and it is not uncommon for the small ones to go bankrupt anyways. Kpb, I have 274 cows and have to work off the farm to support my habit, I do not see the issue with off farm income. It is not my RIGHT to farm full time. If my operation is not making money right now, it is my problem to deal with. If it continues to not make money, I will sell it before I get in too much trouble. Bez, if you do not like the free market approach to farming put forth earlier (producer owned packing plants, testing), the only other idea I have would be to have a voluntary cull of the whole beef herd. Put $2B in pot, pay $1100.00 for each cow/calf pair destroyed, and the govt pays this out till the moneys gone. This can be done by this summer, and will bring our herd down by nearly 2million animals. That should be enough to match our existing packing capacity, and bring up prices to pre bse levels prior to this fall. Just guessing at these numbers, but its the thought that counts. - Problems with that will be an upset public. A benefit of this over the quota system is that as we gain back and develop export markets, our industry can still grow. Guys would be able to sell out this summer and get more for their stock than they would otherwise get. And anyone would still be able to get into raising cows and expand as much as he wants without buying up costly quota (which by the way is a major trade irritant).

[jensend]

the situation is that canada has too much land. this isn't england or europe or even the united states where land for agricultural production is a scarce commodity which makes people realize food production has to be a decision, not a residual use of the land. take land out of cattle production - what will it be used for? then will you supply manage grain production, tree farms, golf courses? you'll have too many of all of them. the most rational course of action is to use the land to its most efficient potential and market the production. canada has too much land and should be marketing excess production to where there isn't enough land. if you reduce the number of cattle you shrink the economy of all the associated industries and that will be a huge step backwards. rational thought suggests we have this resource - land - and we should use it in an efficient productive manner. doesn't have to be cattle but you can't subsidize everything and that is essentially what supply management does in the name of keeping order in the marketplace.

[Bez]

In the end, I believe profitability is the key.

Find a way to be profitable and we make it - otherwise we do not.

So far, even in good times profitability is difficult - it is there but now there is none.

So, what is the answer?

I have no problem with a cull - and I give a damn what the public thinks. Unfortunately there are many of us that are simply always thinking of ways to improve profitability - then we come up with many more reasons why we should not do what it takes to achive profitability.

When business becomes a money loser they shut down or move.

So, what do we do?

Like I said before - I am ready to explore all alternatives.

Bez

[cowman]

Interesting discussion! Supply management is a no show...period! It just isn't going to happen. Do any of you honestly believe a Canadian government is going to risk international trade for a few old cow farmers? Isn't going to happen.
Personally I've always liked the idea of a cull...but that isn't going to happen either!
Not sure where all you guys are from but in Alberta our "duly elected" cattle group has the governments ear and they call the shots. Now I assume we are all devotees to democracy? So therefore, realize the majority of producers have spoken and you need to live with it? And if you didn't vote in the ABP elections, do you have a right to complain?
The last few comments from you guys have got it right. If it isn't working for you then you need to make some tough decisions? Quit the business or find a way to make it work. Some guys on here have come up with ways to survive? And some of us have come to the conclusion that the effort isn't worth the payback. No one holds a gun to your head and tells you to raise cows?

[15444]

Well, if you had listened to Rex Murphy's Cross Canada check-up yesterday you would see what people think should happen to agriculture. Old biddy says she would pay an extra $25 dollars on her grocery bill per month if she knew it was going to the farmer. But then the young ones (ahem 20-40) are the exact opposite, and the ones that will be around in 20 years?. They ask why government is bailing out the business of agriculture when Uncle Larry's video repair shop down the street didn't make it? I agree with them wholeheartedly. No one in agriculture has come up with a long term solution yet. Building packing plants isn't a long term solution because if that border isn't sealed for good to live cattle, the same ones on Agri-ville that talk about the glory of the free market and freedom in beef forever, will be the same ones who ship their cattle south or to the big packers for a premium, because money talks when the banker has his hand in you grabbing for more? I know because I will be one of them grabbing for that American green if I can get the chance, because bills have to be paid and if the Americans and big packers can give me an extra 5-10 cents per pound on my calves over the domestic guys, then that's where they'll go? Lots of guys that will come out of this with more debt then they had going in....makes sense to make the most money back as possible?...or lose the farm?

[grassfarmer]

kbp, Is there a model of supply management in beef working anywhere else in the world? I'd be interested in finding out.
It just seems to me you are tied up on the cutting cow numbers side of it rather considering the price of beef. If we went that route and cut cow numbers and the packers only offer the same price as now what do you do?
The world is awash with beef - reality is for your supply management proposal to work you would need to stop imports and have a herd smaller than domestic needs to raise prices. Just as unrealistic as my proposal.

[kpb]

grassfarmer, I just don't see a supply management proposal being unrealistic in Canada. The Alberta ag minister back when this BSE mess started, stated that she would consider supply managment if the beef producers asked for it. As far as around the world goes, I think you probably know a lot more about that than I do. What do European beef producers get for their product? Or UK? Are they subsidized?
grassfarmer, I frankly don't see any chance of limiting the power of the multi's in this country. Do you see any indication that the feds are going to do anything about this--cuz I sure don't. Supply managment may be pie in the sky but I don't think so--it is not an idea that is unknown in Canada and I believe it is workable. Of course we would have to limit imports--what's wrong with that? Every other country around seems to have no trouble limiting our exports whenever they want to. We need to develop a different mind set in this country--we need to start looking after our own farmers the same way every other nation on the globe looks after theirs. I'm sick of being the world's patsy.
Nicolass, your comments are simply stunning to me. You have 274 cows and work off the farm to, as you say, support your cattle habit. Would'nt you rather not have to work off the farm in order to make a decent living? That's what we're trying to come up with here--a way for beef producers to make a decent living, like every other worker in Canada, without having to support their business with another job. You should be the biggest supporter of supply managment because it would enable you to work on the farm full-time. Unless you like working two jobs?


kpb

[grassfarmer]

kpb,
I was genuinly asking if there were other supply managed beef industries around the world - I don't know of any but if there were some I would be interested to study them.
As far as European beef production goes - it is all sold at less than cost of production by farmers and the subsidy system tops up their income.
Growing up in a subsidy system we were led to believe that this was OK, consumers were the ones really being subsidised through access to cheap food.
Since coming here and seeing how the North American model works I realise the ones really benefitting from the system were the retailers (they hold the power rather than the packers in Europe)
I just wish you guys would see that the reason producers here are poor is not because we have too many cows,too much land, too much grain or that consumers get their food too cheap - it's because the intermediate players make an outrageous sum out of the processing. Due to their monopoly position - look back at my bread example from yesterday and tell me I'm wrong.
As far as moving ahead I see the Government no more likely to address supply management in beef than to tackle the multi-nationals. All producers are frustrated at lack of Government backbone and resolve in this industry - how can we get them to change and stick up for us - that is perhaps the biggest challenge.