Alberta Beef Producers Town Hall Meeting

[farmers_son]

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.

[pandiana]

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?

[farmers_son]

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.

[farmers_son]

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

[pandiana]

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.

[grassfarmer]

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.

[farmers_son]

Emrald1: What I am trying to say is that ABP can get feedback from empty chairs if it comes to that. Yes, far better that the chairs are full but if they aren't, then why? At this point in the BSE crisis, I do not think apathy could be said to be the reason.

Pandiana: Agreed, we are all on the same side, and I appreciate your insights and comments.

I noted your point that producers and organizations are unwilling to pick winners and losers. The winners or losers will be producers in any event. I frankly think producers are unable to pick much of anything, the pocketbook is empty. I do not think organizations should pick winners or losers. They can set directions, establish policies, provide assistance, lobby government and so much more.

Yes, government will play a role. I think government working in tandem with producer organizations can develop a business model that would see producers be able to participate further up the value chain.

The ultimate vehicle may be NGC or new generation coop, or even possibly an alliance of smaller groups of abattoirs located throughout the province pooling resources. What is needed is the environment for it to happen and that is where our organizations could play a role. The present system is skewed in favour of the big packers through various regulations and restrictions. For instance, the requirement for federal inspection before beef can be sold beyond provincial boundaries and the incredible cost of meeting federal inspection requirements making smaller scale operations cost prohibitive. Much can be done and needs to done and I would encourage our organizations to start taking the lead in this endeavour. Sure they should have started two years ago but that is neither here nor there. Better late then never.

Grassfarmer: Rather than saying we are being fleeced by the Americans and no one can see it, I would suggest we are being fleeced by the Americans and no one is doing anything about it. I believe not just producers but all Canadians and some Americans too can see what is going on.

[kpb]

pandiana, I want to just get this straight---ABP does nothing at all for two years except sit around and consider what to do and it is the producers fault for not telling them what to do? So the producers are at fault because ABP has no idea what to do? You know we should name ABP a company of Mr. Dithers if that is the case. These guys have had two years to do something and you're telling me that the choices of what action to take are too big for them to decide what to do? You have got to be kidding.

kpb

[pandiana]

Hmmmm kpb, I assume by your saying that ABP has done nothing in two years that you mean that they have not succeeded in 'getting the border open' or 'built packing plants' or 'killed cows' or installed a lab to 'test everying' or 'reinstated our markets with Japan'. Then it's true. Have they been working on these problems? Ask them.

[grassfarmer]

kbp, It is correct that ABP look to producers for direction that is how a democratically elected organisation should work. The ABP set up is good enough - producer meetings giving direction to directors who formulate policy and then lobby Government on producers behalf. Unfortunately it hasn't been working like that, there has often been little interest or direction given by producers due to poor attendance at fall producer meetings (pre BSE). In my mind this has created a dictatorship with some of those further up the organisation arbitarily deciding what policy should or shouldn't be. The Alberta Government obviously realises this and did particularily well with the Shirley/Arno combination - it was painful to watch Arno being a puppet for the Alberta Government. I believe the reason ABP have refused at any point to condemn the packer monopoly situation is due to this closeness to the Alberta Government.

So what opportunity does this series of roadshows present us?
I take it this is a first? as such are they as important as the Fall producer meetings? Are they formatted so that producers can pass a resolution from the floor that reflects their concerns and what they want ABP to do?
If so will these resolutions be given special importance and acted on or will they be set aside until the Fall producer meetings where they will be raised again before possibly being selected to be discussed (or condemned) at the ABP AGM next December?
Unless this is a chance to really influence the direction of the organisation now it is of little use - we can't afford to wait another 9 or 10 months before any action we want is embarked upon. Bear in mind that much of this action will be lobbying Government which would take months in itself. Unless we can break the mould and get something happening NOW it's a waste of time.

[rkaiser]

Well hello everyone. Got mad at my computer the other day, wiped the blood off and took it in to the hospital. Back rolling with a new antivirus package and a new attitude. Did you know there was counciling for computers and users?

Great discussion, and I appaude your efforts pandiana for trying to get people out. Weather is sounding better for next week, and my cows will be under the care of my very capable wife on Tuesday evening.

After sitting in Minister Horners office a few months back and introducing our BIG C proposal, it was very apparent that the government of Alberta takes direction from the ABP as far as being the voice of the producer. Don't get me wrong, BIG C has made major strides since March 2nd mostly at the federal level, however the battle remains on more than one front. I beleive, as Diane has pointed out, that ABP is not only experiencing turmoil within, but is commencing a somewhat different strategy concerning our debacle.

Now may be as good a time as we have seen to make our points loud and clear.

One major turn of events is the invitation from ABP to have Mr. Cam Ostercamp speak at the next ABP town hall meeting in Edmonton.

My hat is off to Diane, Greg Bowie, grassfarmer, and the rest of the Rimbey gang who helped host the largest BIG C meeting to date, and are now cutting edge with this initial town hall ABP meeting.

See you all on Tuesday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[farmers_son]

There is a mention of these two meetings on the ABP website at:

http://www.albertabeef.org/outandabout.html

Anyone interested in what the ABP/CCA is or is not doing might check out this industry update, excerpts pasted below. Obviously I need to correct my remark that no one is doing anything. Excuse my frustration.

http://www.albertabeef.org/news.asp?NewsIndex=252&Submit=Submit

Key elements of the contingency plan are:

• Increase domestic processing capacity,

• Better match cattle marketings to available processing capacity,

• Increase BSE surveillance,

• Expand Canadian beef usage, diversify export markets, and eliminate supplementary beef import permits,

• Enhance movement tracking of cattle, age verification, and premise identification, and

• Contingency for the potential loss of exports of boneless beef from cattle under 30 months of age.

Increasing Capacity

The fundamental issue facing Canadian beef producers is not lack of markets for beef, but lack of domestic processing capacity. Typically Canada has exported over a million head of cattle to the United States every year. The trade impacts of BSE have locked these cattle into a domestic market that has not had the capacity to process the over supply.

While reopening the U.S. border to live cattle would bring immediate price benefits, the CCA and ABP recognize that significantly increasing Canada's domestic processing capacity will bring greater benefits to the industry in the long run. Typically boxed beef has been less susceptible to export trade actions than live cattle and can be traded into more markets. Canadians will also profit from the value-added benefits of processing.

The CCA and ABP are demanding new measures to accelerate capacity expansion through tax incentives and revisions to the federal government's $66 million loan loss reserve intended to increase lenders' willingness to support projects. Existing capacity could also be maximized through agreements to allow inter-provincial trade from provincially-inspected facilities.

[pandiana]

grassfarmer wrote:
"Unless this is a chance to really influence the direction of the organisation now it is of little use - we can't afford to wait another 9 or 10 months before any action we want is embarked upon. Bear in mind that much of this action will be lobbying Government which would take months in itself. Unless we can break the mould and get something happening NOW it's a waste of time."

Unfortunately, grassfarmer, the time has not been on our side. I share your frustration. Some of these packing plant initiatives will agree, I am sure. A lot of energy spent with little results. Energy I think is the key. When the border failed to open, you could feel the energy at all levels directed at finding resolution to this impasse. I hope we can maintain this level of activity. Maybe this meeting will help. I have noted how many Canadians are expressing their opinions on American forums. They are digging in for action.

As to resolutions at the meeting, I don't know. I will try to find out but I don't think so as I believe it has to be a published AGM of 'special meeting'. I'll get back to you.

[pandiana]

I would highly doubt if there will be an opportunity to present resolutions at a Town Hall meeting, and I for one, certainly do not expect that opportunity.
Resolutions are presented at Zone meetings each fall as most of you are aware.
I hope that anyone attending these Town Hall meetings will listen to what ABP has to say before they make comments either pro or con. I for one, will be attending to hear what ABP has done and is attempting to do.

[farmers_son]

I would think at any gathering of cattle producers a majority vote of those attending would be at least taken as information or an indication of producers views.

These votes would not be resolutions to be debated at the Annual General Meeting in December. However as policy can be made at the board level at any time throughout the year the ABP directors who would be present would likely make those views known to the entire board. No guarantee those views would be acted on however.

I would point out that while in Alberta we are holding meetings, right now, today, in Quebec producers are selling cows to a packing plant they own and getting over 40 cents a pound for Holsteins, thanks to the work their provincial organization did on Quebec producers' behalf. And while Albertans may not want to do things exactly like the UPA, it is hard to argue with results.

I agree with Grassfarmers comment "Unless we can break the mould and get something happening NOW it's a waste of time." Why, if I thought the mould would be broken by producers attending I would make the drive to Rimbey next Tuesday myself.