• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alberta Beef Producers Town Hall Meeting

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #25
    Pandiana: As I said, I was playing devils advocate, stirring the pot a bit. Your point regarding attending to make a statement to ABP is well taken. However I would wonder if the ABP is listening to producers than why do we not see ABP taking steps to see packing capacity built in this province?

    I would reiterate my point that if these meetings are not well attended that the cause should not be assumed to be producer apathy. If producers are not interested in what the ABP has to say than perhaps the ABP should reconsider what it is saying. So there is a message for the ABP if lots of producers turn out for the meetings and there is a message for ABP if only a few are there. The challenge is to hear both messages.

    Comment


      #26
      If producers choose to stay at home and not attend, they have no way of knowing if the message ABP brings is something that they agree with or not.

      Better to be in the hall and voice an opinion than sit at home and have ABP representatives assume that people were apathetic or don't care how the industry is represented.

      You can be sure that the Minister of AAFRD will be briefed on the outcome of the meeting and subsequent ones. If he hears that the chairs were empty he is likely going to put it down to apathy.
      AAFRD will surely have representatives in attendance at all these meetings to provide feedback which will include any comments made by producers.

      Comment


        #27
        grassfarmer, I understand that the government representative will be Lloyd Snelgrove, Government of Alberta, Chair, Standing Policy.

        As far as local newspapers, just passing on what I was told. I have a call into Rob Gilgan, but haven't heard from him yet.

        Comment


          #28
          Horse,
          You are correct in that only one delegate per zone sits as a director except for 'directors at large' that are elected at the annual general meeting.

          This doesn't mean, however, that the other delegates are not doing anything. In zone 6, each delegate is assigned to a committee. These include government affairs, Beef Information Centre, Technical Committee (deals with research into Animal Health,Management etc.),Public affairs and others. These committee activities are then reported back to the board.

          Within the delegate and director body, ABP has 7 representatives elected to CCA. CCA is the national organization which has the ear of the federal government.

          As you can see, there are many levels of communication from the grassroots up to CCA. When voices are unified, they will come from many sources and have a greater impact on those elected to speak for you.

          Comment


            #29
            farmers_son. Is ABP listening to producers? What are the 'producers' saying. At the AGM, as Randy said, although given an opportunity to speak the delegate body was not particularly inclined to support this proposal. Why? Maybe because they were influenced by the concensus of those that expressed an opinion that this was not they way to go. It is and has been very clear that ABP has had increased packing capacity as a mantra in order to work towards self sufficiency. But which of the proposals will work? Which proposal should ABP back...the one that has the most support of ABP delegates (some with vested interests)? It is a very difficult proposition. I have no doubt that if one proposal was unanamously supported by the grassroots producers and this support was communicated strongly to ABP, directly or through their representatives, they would hear. Whether than can change their rules I don't know but the Alberta government and the Feds would also get the message. They are waiting for you!

            Comment


              #30
              kpb wrote "There are many substantive things that could have been done by the ABP in the last two years--I'll list 5 of them off the top of my head--test animals, support local packing plants, push for multi's to open books, initiate and support trade action, work towards banning packer-owned cattle. Those are just 5 I thought of in 30 seconds--you may not even agree with them but at least they are actions--you can likely think of another 10. Why could they think of none in two years? "

              These past few years have been a roller coaster ride for all levels of our industry and every sector has been stressed, financially and otherwise. We all want this thing fixed.

              Many solutions have been proposed, even within this forum. Which is the right one?
              There is no doubt that everyone expected the border to open on March 7th (except R-Calf). As a result, although there were contingency plans proposed, no one expected they would have to be enforced. I understand that following the border closure, ABP met by conference call for several days developing their plan of action.

              You might be surprised, kpb, on just how many of these 'solutions' you proposed have been or are now being worked on. I think you need to ask the right questions of the right people and if you don't get the right answer, keep asking.

              Comment


                #31
                The ABP/CCA does indeed have a stated goal of increased packing capacity in this province. I am not aware that they have a stated goal of increased competition within our packing sector. When these producer organizations quote statistics to demonstrate increased packer capacity in the range of 20%, for the most part they are referring to increased kills at the Brooks and High River plants rather than any increase in physical capacity.

                Actions or inactions speak louder than words. It is my observation that, by default if not by fact, ABP/CCA’s actions if not words suggest they have already picked a proposal, the proposal for expansion by Cargill and Tyson.

                The ABP/CCA is not afraid to show leadership rather than wait for producer consensus on other issues. It is a cop out to suggest our industry leaders do nothing regarding increasing competition in the packing industry and creating a functioning marketplace because producers are not unanimous about how to do it.

                Obviously, the ABP/CCA’s preferred goal was to see the border open and continue to depend upon the U.S. to provide needed competition for live cattle. After the events of the past two years, that can only be viewed as a short term solution. If the ABP/CCA are waiting for a message from producers they have only to listen to what producers are saying at auctions, coffee shops, restaurants, meetings throughout the country. Producers are wanting packing plant capacity and they are wanting to participate in the ownership of that packing capacity. Our beef organizations have shown a reluctance to get engaged in that solution and take the producer’s side. If they are waiting for me, I would turn that around and say I am waiting for them to do something.

                For goodness sakes, it has been nearly two years. I would respectfully suggest the time for meetings is long past. If anything, the ABP/CCA should be holding meetings to inform producers of the new packing plant that is about to open in their area rather than holding dog and pony shows to tell producers what a great job they are doing or how they are going to get that border open. We have all heard that song and dance before and if producers do not come in droves to the meetings it should not be assumed that they are not interested in the BSE crisis, because producers are aware of BSE and its effect on their operation on a daily basis.

                Comment


                  #32
                  farmers_son, you may be right that ABP was behind any increase in packing, Tyson, Cargill, Sunterra or any other legitimate proposal provided it could stand on its own merits.
                  I think is is clear to everyone, including ABP, that the more independent from US conglomerates our industry is, the more choices we will have in situations like BSE and other border disputes. I am against supporting American ownership of our industry.

                  On the other hand, it does take time for independent proposals to get sod turned let alone get structures up and running. Look how long it took Blue Mountain to get going. Because Tyson and Cargill have the infrastructure and finance that allowed rapid expansion should we try to stop them? We are all happy to sell our cattle to anyone who will buy them, unfortunately, even at their price. Without Cargill and Tyson, far fewer cattle would have been marketed.

                  The fact that we are back to square one will give us one more chance to lobby our governments, provincial and federal, to step up and support a concept such as BIC in which producers can take back ownership (and some control) of our industry. My biggest disappointment is that our governments have shown total lack of leadership in this regard. Could it be because there has been lack of direction given by producers as well as our organizations?

                  Comment


                    #33
                    Pandiana: It is fair comment to suggest that ABP is behind any proposal, Tyson, Cargill, Sunterra provided it can stand on its own merits. I think it is also fair comment to suggest that ABP is more than willing to stand back and applaud others efforts rather than take any initiative themselves. ABP/CCA’s inaction to proactively work towards solutions that would see the average cow-calf/ primary producer create opportunities to participate in the packing plant industry and value added opportunities beyond speaks volumes. What they are saying is if you are big you can play the value added game, but if you are Joe cow producer your purpose in life is to produce weaned calves to sell to the margin operators.

                    I would say that without Cargill and Tyson a lot fewer cattle would get marketed by Cargill and Tyson. The cattle all get slaughtered in the end, why not by the producers themselves? I agree that these U.S. players have had influence in seeing our beef enter the U.S. but I believe that benefit has come at a very high cost for Canadian producers resulting in strong beef prices but low live prices. Should we try and stop Cargill and Tyson from expanding? Why actually yes. Because that expansion would mean less competition within Canada even if it means more packing plant capacity.

                    I think there has been plenty of direction given by producers. Not much direction given by ABP/CCA. The producers have clearly indicated their desire to see competition return to the packing industry and that they desire to participate through an ownership stake in the packing industry to guarantee they are never again left at the mercy of the two big packers. The needed consensus on how to do to that should not be expected to come from producers themselves scattered throughout this province and from coast to coast of this country but from their leaders in organizations like ABP/CCA. It is these leaders on the boards of these organizations who are best positioned to come together to hammer out a consensus and direction to create needed competition in the industry and alternatives to marketing live cattle to the big packers. I would suggest the best method to achieve this is through new opportunities for primary producers to increase their involvement in their own industry by marketing their own live cattle through their own producer packing plants. To date ABP/CCA have chosen not to support that, choosing instead to leave solutions up to a non functioning marketplace dominated by greedy multinational players.

                    Hopefully producers will come to these meetings, but again, I say if they choose not to it may be more because producers do not see ABP/CCA as offering any relevant solutions rather than simple producer apathy. Emerald1’s comment is well made “If producers choose to stay at home and not attend, they have no way of knowing if the message ABP brings is something that they agree with or not." Perhaps true, but it could be producers are already aware of the ABP message and it just does not get them very excited. Producers may simply choose not to hear it one more time.

                    Comment


                      #34
                      Then again, ABP cannot get feedback, positive or negative from empty chairs.

                      Comment


                        #35
                        farmers_son wrote: "The producers have clearly indicated their desire to see competition return to the packing industry and that they desire to participate through an ownership stake in the packing industry to guarantee they are never again left at the mercy of the two big packers."

                        Which packer/s did they support? Has there been producers falling all over themselves to sign up for ownership? I agree with you that producers want to see these facilities built, but they are stymied by the fact that they, like our organizations, are not willing to gamble on winners or losers. In my mind, the only body capable of making winners would be our governments.

                        I am on your side. I want the same things you do. I wanted to be part of the process to see speak for our grassroots producers, but your representatives need to know they are behind us as well.

                        There are many sectors of this industry represented at ABP, and one of the complexities that we have to deal with is that each sector has a slightly different perspective on what has to be done. There are an estimated 38,000 farms in AB, probably less than 1000 large feeders, and 11, or 3 large packers. But both cow/calf and feedlot sectors are represented more or less equally at the ABP table (there are no packers). The huge diversity associated with the primary producer (size of herds, environment, debt load) makes it difficult to find a one solution fits all, but we need to work on it.

                        Comment


                          #36
                          It would indeed be great to see leadership from Government but look at yesterdays meeting in Texas - Bush was persuading Martin to increase oil/gas supply from Canada to the US and Martin rolls over and says "yes Mr Bush"
                          Are these people totally inept or do they just lack backbone?
                          Surely that was the chance to hint that we might play hardball if the beef/ soft wood lumber issues aren't corrected. Oh, no of course, the US and Canadian Governments agree that the border should be open to beef it's only those r-calfers in Montana that have kept it closed. What bullshit.
                          We are being fleeced by the Americans and it's like no one can see it.

                          Comment

                          • Reply to this Thread
                          • Return to Topic List
                          Working...