this is progress?

[Incognito]

No Wooly:...I knew the answer.scroll up

A) GW Bush has annouced a 5% cut in Ag spending for a total of 550 plus mil.

B) the Senate, led by the Farm legislators, embarrased GW Bush on the border vote

C) negotiating power now goes back to the Farm legislators as Bush will not use veto power on something so small

D) Judicial appointments are patronage appointments

E) Cebull maybe a loose cannon but GW Bush has been kept aprised all along

Crows don't eat crows

So, think about that the next time someone says its not political

[cowman]

kpb: I definitely agree that if we lose the boxed beef trade we are toast. Now I doubt that will happen because too many people are making big bucks on that trade and in this world money talks?
Personally I can't see the Canadian government letting the cattle industry go down? Too much money involved, too many people depend on it for a living?
Maybe if R-CALF gets an injunction against boxed beef it would finally wake up the government to the fact that America is not playing fair? Perhaps prompt them to actually do something like test everything and take the USA to court and force them to live up to their trade deals? Then pursue an agressive export marketing plan based on the fact Canadian beef is tested BSE free? Our marketers should stress to their potential customers that the USA beef is not tested and in fact they are agressively covering up their own problems?
Talked to a guy who came from Ohio. He told me the farmers down there know they have BSE but just do the old 3S thing! He said in his hometown there is a man dying in the hospital from BSE but it has been hushed up! Now of course this is just what he told me and he offered no proof, but he was sincere.

[Bez]

Supply management:

Only two profitable outfits out there right now and both are supply managed - poultry and dairy. Speaks volumes.

Let the beef industry fall? You bet.

By doing nothing, the beef industry falls to what could be considered - in gov eyes - acceptable levels.

Bez

[jensend]

gotta feel good about this one:

World STORY
Beef official says U.S. border may be closed to Canadian cattle to late 2006

Judy Monchuk
Canadian Press


March 10, 2005


1 | 2 | NEXT >>
ADVERTISEMENT



CALGARY (CP) - Ottawa kicked in $50 million for a campaign to reclaim and expand markets for Canadian beef Thursday as a top industry official made the grim observation that it could be another 18 months before the U.S. border reopens to live cattle.

"Realistically we have to look at the worst-case scenario and make sure we have plans built around that," said Dennis Laycraft of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

as far as supply management for beef goes, i don't know if it would be a good thing or not. my feeling is that it couldn't happen anyway, canada won't commit the money to make the changeover, wto would see red on it so you can just as well wish for tropical weather in january in winnipeg.

[15444]

Well the way I see it, Canada has to wake up and realize that we are a nation of exports? I really sometimes wonder what industries people/government think contributes to this country's economy? Either Canada develops a backbone and sticks up for its softwood/agriculture/fishery industries, or it goes protectionist and turns alot of commodities, especially in agriculture, into supply managed ones?

I can see it as being a healthier industry with 30,000 ranchers earning a decent living, rather then 90,000 trying to sc**** by on loans and hope?

[jensend]

15444 - you may be right but i have trouble understanding how this would come about. i don't think there's the political will in canada to do it and i think we would face trade repercussions if it did happen. i just don't think it's anywhere on the table so let's not wish for the impossible. i think it would be more productive to deal with the situation; negotiate testing protocols with importers and get on with it. dreaming about supply manged beef is just distracting yourself from the issue.

[15444]

jensend, read my earlier post about how I would implement supply management in this country. Give me a month and I could write a 20-30 page report to present to CCA/ABP/OCA/MCPA/KAP/SSA/BCCA/OFA/NFU etc. I think based on my preliminary figures (NOTE: PRELIMINARY), I could convince the government to switch...as they only see dollar figures on everything anyways. Heck, the $50 million they just earmarked for beef promotion would go a long way to implementing a supply managed beef initiative.

Trade sanctions?...possibly, but we could just ignore them like the American's do (yes..we could). The WTO, as well as NAFTA, has alot of retoric but little backbone. Being that few countries even export beef to our beef-flooded country anymore, I don't see a major trade war over supply managed beef. And what's the worst anyone could do???..put sanctions on our wood, our steel, our fish products, our automobiles???...OHHH...but I bet you that OIL would never be included in that! There is always something that countries want from someone else...so you play hardball with the ones who want to play hardball, and play nice with the ones who want to play nice.

[15444]

how would you get a buy in from the industry for supply management ?

[Incognito]

Better yet:

How would you get a buy-in from the WTO?

[15444]

I don't believe getting the industry on side would be a problem. Obviously, with a set rate for cows, most cow/calf guys would be for it. Unless of course there is someone out there that likes getting $100-200 for a cow that would be automatically worth $500-1000 under my form of supply management?

Even a feedlot guy, like kbp, thinks its not a bad idea. After a couple of years, calf supply will go down, and the entire chain would benefit from increase prices based on a supply/domestic demand marketplace.

Now the only way to make sure that everyone in the chain benefits, but that final market price at the store doesn't go through the roof (as packers try to maintain their hefty margins), producer owned plants, not driven by profit, would have to be the norm.

Again, it's pretty general. If you have specific questions, please fire away.

Now on the WTO front....that's different. There is no way to implement it without turning a few heads. But this all goes back to where Canada wants to stand on the world stage. Looking at agriculture right now at the WTO level we are this close (*squeeze index finger and thumb together*) to losing our current supply managed commodities. AND FOR WHAT?! Our government, through agriculture and industry portfolios, have argued at the WTO for years now that the EU and the States have to eliminate their subsidies. Finally, the States cut their farm bill spending a little this year, but didn't eliminate it! Will they ever eliminate it?? I doubt it!
But I just about bet that we will lose our only profitable sectors, without having first rid the developed world of subsidies, if it ever happens. Kinda of like getting a couple of shitty calves off of a good bull, knowing that 30 more cows are supposed to calve to him, but shipping him before the others even calve! The Feds think everyone will drop their subsidies totally over the next few years...but then again, they are the same ones who were and still are banking on the border....without having a backup plan.

So, what does Canada do? I say ignore WTO. Do what is in the best interest of Canadians, and look after ourselves when dealing particularly with the agriculture industry.

[cropduster]

INCOGNITO..........where are these cowboys getting these drugs????????I`ve heard you can get the recipe for crystal meth from the net.Maybe just kicked a couple times too many in the maternity pen.............

[kpb]

A supply management plan such as that proposed by 15444 would have no problem getting industry support in my opinion. As this BSE crap goes on and on and on more and more cattlemen will realize that a supply management system is the only way out of our mess. Even if the border opens tomorrow we are still reliant on one market and that spells a repeat of this problem sometime in the future.
The plan put forward by 15444 would initially benefit producers the most. However eventually the whole industry will benefit because prices would be known and planning could be made at every level. The biggest problem with operating a backgrounding or feeding operation in the present environment is that you don't know what to pay for calves. In the past you could have a pretty good idea of what to pay based on what you knew you would receive in the future--sure there were times when this didn't happen but these times were rare. Now we don't know from week to week what calves will bring, the swing is huge--sometimes .20 and we also are reluctant to invest in new calves because we don't know when the next bomb is coming in. So yes, I think the industry buy-in would be complete if the details were properly explained.
As far as the WTO is concerned, who cares what they think? We've been told what to do in this country by every two-bit nation for too long in my humble opinion. Everyone else seems to virtually ignore the WTO--I'm not sure why we should be their fall-guys. We have only 2 profitable ag sectors in this country and they are both supply managed. Does that mean anything to you guys who are opposed to supply management?
Lastly, to cropduster, I assume you are against supply management by your cryptic comment--I have this question--what is your alternative? Or are you one of thse guys who likes the status quo--Maybe we should just wait it out? Or do you just have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that means producers can control their own business?
Cowman, it's not a case of the government letting the beef industry fail--it just will, over time, if the feds continue to do nothing constructive to change the infrastructure. So far they've done nothing and nothing has changed--its sort of like being pecked to death by a duck--you don't know you're bleeding until you're half dead.
I seem to recall the Alberta Ag Minister saying she would institute supply management for beef producers if they asked for it. That was right after the first BSE case, two years ago. So it COULD happen--I say let's have a plebiscite and see if the producers in this country want a stable, profitable industry that they control or a slow death.


kpb

[WoolyBear]

Just how exactly is the "supply" to be allocated? I see its going to be another Alberta pony show where the big operators and the oil money talks....... What kind of portion will be given to the starting up farmers and those that live in Sask, Manitoba and the rest of Canada? Just remember boys.......... theres more to Canada than Alberta!!!

[15444]

Thank you kbp. I am seriously thinking about writing a full supply management proposal to be critiqued by a handful of people and then submitted for review by all levels of government and industry. Maybe supply management won't seem like such a touchy issue if someone actually proposes a designed plan.

WoolyBear:

Briefly, allocation of supply is based upon the number of cows reported by each producer by a pre-determined date. (Somewhat similar to the set-aside program). I would suggest that at the conclusion of industry consultations, roundtable discussions, and community forums over a period of several months, a deadline is set (say 3 months) for producers to report the number of cows in their herd. This allows ample time for numbers to be received. Following this deadline, inspectors would visit operations and count cows over a period of 3 months. (I know it sounds foolish to count cows, but I cannot conceive another way to roughyly double-check the numbers stated by the producer).

If you read my earlier post on my proposal, you'll see that each producer would receive quota for each cow in his herd. Therefore, the percentage of quota for each each province would be exactly the same as the percentage of the national cowherd held in each province currently. This eliminates any bias towards a certain province.

An example?

January 2005 statistics indicate that Manitoba has 655,000 beef cows. Provided each producer joined into the supply managed system, 655,000 units of quota would be issued for Manitoba.

From here, I will just copy what I mentioned in my earlier post:

'For the next, say 10-15 years, the government plans to eliminate a certain percentage of these cows (say 2% or about 120,000 head/year) through buying the quota from those producers who are willing to sell. This provides the producers with a guaranteed amount of cash, and provides the government with a option of getting a segment of the ag industry into a stabilized position with minimal cost...roughly between 60 to 120 million/year based on either $500 or $1000 for quota (all depending on which one is decided upon originally.)

Based on a 2% elimination rate, in 10 years, 20% of the cowherd will have been eliminated without the use of senseless mass culling, or relying on producers to go broke and sell out. Had we implemented this in 2003:

~ The total cowherd size would have went down by 4% instead of going up 12%
~ It would have cost the governments approx. $240 million over 2 years, rather then the current $1.5 billion.

Although supply management may not change market prices dramatically over a couple of years, it would stop producers from keeping large percentages of heifers back, which just increases the cowherd size...because most guys don’t cull the same percentage of females they keep.

Although there are a lot of guys on here that are gonna argue with this idea, think about this:

~ Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to have a guaranteed price/buyer for your cows, provided the government hadn’t reached it’s 2% for that year?

~ The quota is transferrable to your children.

~ It’s a solid management system with hefty fines for someone going over their quota amount intentionally, which keeps the cowherd size even more stable.

~ Provided the government hasn’t reached their 2% for the year, you have the option of either selling the cow to them, or through the regular market system.

The biggest thing that I see the quota system doing is keeping the ‘fly by night’ producers out of the system.'

[grassfarmer]

15444, Not seeking to shoot you down here but two things occur to me about your proposal.
1. will lower cow numbers raise beef producers net returns without tackling the parasites further up the production chain? (Retailers would be free to import cheaper offshore beef if prices rose to much as it stands now)
2. what implications does this have for land use and profitability of other ag sectors?

I read an even more thorough solution today produced by the NFU, it addresses problems in all sectors of agriculture.
check it out at: www.nfu.ca/begin/solvingthefarm.html
Of course it will be condemned as being too radicle!