Friday 13

[farmers_son]

Japan discovered its 18 BSE positive today.

Early on in the BSE crisis it seemed that BSE positives were typically announced on Fridays. If you are superstitious about Friday the 13 being unlucky then it might be expected that somewhere in North America a BSE positive could very well be announced today.

Whether it is today or next month we should expect more announcements of BSE positives somewhere in North America. Certainly, in Canada, our increased testing levels offer the possibility of further BSE positives even if the incidence of BSE within the North American cattle herd is declining due to age and the 1997 feed ban.

At the same time there is widespread cynicism that the U.S. is fudging their BSE tests and that they will never admit to having BSE in their herd.

There is a summary of U.S. BSE testing at:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse_testing/test_results.html


If another Canadian animal born after the feed ban in 1997 is tested positive for BSE it is all over for Canadian cattle producers. We will loose our boxed beef trade.

[rkaiser]

Feed Ban Shmeed Ban. Japan is slowly proving that BSE will occur from time to time in any area where testing is done. Have had this conversation with numerous vets, including some at the CFIA. None can explain why BSE has not been even more prevelant in Japan; if indeedy MBM is the problem.

BSE is brought on by an individual chemical imbalance in an individual animal. It cannot be transmitted from one bovine to another through feed, and certainly cannot jump the species barrier by ingestion.

Finding this proof would help no one but the ranchers of the world, and who the hell cares about the ranchers of the world when there are political careers and phamacutical jobs at stake.

Call this conspiracy theory if you like, or sit down and think about it with common sense for a day or two. The proof is right in front of our eyes.

[farmers_son]

I am sure BSE can be found anywhere in the world where sufficient testing is done, anywhere that is except the U.S.

I am also sure BSE can be found far more often in Britain than in Canada where they had the unfortunate practice of feeding BSE infected cows to cows. I think the ruminant feed ban was a good idea even if it may not be the only way a cow could get BSE.

Yes there are theories out there about BSE but I am focused on the more practical aspect of trade once BSE is confirmed in your domestic herd. We are not out of the woods yet and we still are dependent upon net exports of beef to find homes for our production.

Finding another BSE positive is a concern and if the animal is born after the feed ban all the theories in the world are not going to save our industry. The USDA rule that allows our beef into the U.S. is built around the 1997 feed ban. Find another cow born after that ban and we have just handed our industry over to the Americans.

Something to think about on this unlucky Friday.

[grassfarmer]

"Find another cow born after that ban and we have just handed our industry over to the Americans." Aren't we doing that anyway? even before we had BSE.
As you say the UK has a substantial BSE problem and is in a totally different league from Canada. None the less they are getting ready to start exporting again with the proposed windup of the OTM incineration program and use of the "date based export" system - actually using individual IDs to confirm the age of animals at slaughter. It's been a long road since the height of the crisis there in 1996 when the OTM program was brought in. There have been many cases of BSE in cattle born after the ban but this is not hindering their move to export again. I don't see why the Americans would be able to ban our beef for ever if we did have a case born after the feedban. Other than, of course, their ongoing blatant protectionism.

Unfortunately rkaiser I agree with farmers_son that trying to prove the real cause of BSE or vCJD at this stage is barking up the wrong tree. The world "establishment" has decided that BSE and beef are convenient scapegoats for a lot of dubious practises by Governments and chemical companies.

[farmers_son]

I am sure the Americans will not ban our beef forever but forever is a lot longer than we could last. And it is good to hear that UK producers are finally seeing a little light at the end of the tunnel. I don't believe I have seen the same level of government support for the cow calf producer in this country that would match even the limited government support that British producers received. I note that Alberta chose not to contribute 40% to the last federal BSE aid package for cow calf producers, saying they had contributed enough. And that support for cow calf producers to this point has centered around CAIS rather than significant direct aid. Canadian cow calf producers could not hold on to the cows tail for as long as we have seen British producers manage to last without a comparable level of support.

If Canadians find another BSE positive that was born after the feed ban we will find out that things can get a whole lot worse real fast. We have been so focused on legal challenges in the U.S. that we tend to forget that international confidence in our beef begins at home. Find one more young BSE cow and that confidence will evapourate.

At some point our industry needs to stop trying to impress the scientific community and begin to impress the U.S. politicians who really control our fate. Those two cows in January hurt us real bad, we don't need any more.

[grassfarmer]

Don't underestimate the tenacity of beef producers and their ability to hang on farmers_son. That was the biggest lesson we learnt in the UK.
We are already well on the road to
"income replacement" subsidies in Canada - taxpayers replacing part of the money removed from our pockets by value chain theft by processors and retailers.
I don't belief I am the only person to have received a substantial 2003 CAIS payout - how have some of the rest of you made out?
Bottom line is you will find beef producers will hang on and hang on year after year because they don't want(or know how) to do anything else with their lives.

[grassfarmer]

grassfarmer, I don't know of many producers in this area that received much in the way of CAIS money, and those that did, certainly weren't able to meet their financial obligations entirely with their CAIS money thats for sure.
The last think the industry needs is for the average Canadian to feel that we are all doing great because of the subsidies/CAIS payments that are available.

The damn CAIS money would have been better spent on some good slaughter plants across the country.

[grassfarmer]

I only discussed CAIS with one of my neighbours and he had received a "handsome" sum, to use his words. The way I see it this was 2003 CAIS money - now 2002 and 2003 were both very tough years with the drought and high feed prices. If a producer was able to pull through until 2005 they weren't needing the payments, if they had been in dire straights waiting until now would have been too long. It's a stupid scheme but it is a substantial financial burden on Canadian taxpayers none the less and we should at least acknowledge that we have received the money (when it arrives).
Another point I wonder about CAIS is whether those of you getting small or no payouts applied yourselves rather than using an accountant? I looked at the scheme and reckoned I wouldn't get much out of it but the accountant was able to trigger a large payment. As they said when it came out first CAIS stood for "Certified Accountant Income Scheme" In my case the accountant bill was money well spent.

[BWC]

The way the BSE outbreak was hanndled in the UK is vastly different in comparison toour handling of the situation. Their feed ban when put into effect actually had teeth in it. Here until the last 2 cows tested positive we still had non compliance. In the eyes of the world market in the light of the last 2 positve cases, our feed ban is seriously flawed in their eyes. As for comparative testing in Canada 10 different assay tests are used within a B.S.E test, if we have what we think is a positive it is then sent to the authoritative lab in the UK.In the U.S 1 assay test is used, if there is a reactive test it goes to Ames,Iowa, and thats where it ends, and will always end until someone else in the world is able to test U.S. samples.

[farmers_son]

Grassfarmer, I think it is a good point that we should not underestimate the tenacity or the resolve of producers to see this through.

I would point out that if we have been struggling through so far it is not because of generous government help, at least for cow calf producers. For the most part I have seen very little help personally although some producers in the feedlot sector have received very large cheques. We have made it this far because we regained boxed beef trade with the U.S. in August of 2003 with shipments in September, 2003. If we were to loose that boxed beef trade, say this coming September, then it would not be possible to give away weaned calved this fall. I am concerned that we are playing loose and fast with our boxed beef trade. Our boxed beef trade revolves around an effective 1997 feed ban. The proof of that ban working, whether right or not, is not finding BSE positives born after the ban was put in place.

I cannot imagine a more unfair method of supporting producers through the BSE crisis then CAIS. Everyone’s BSE cost has been the same. Own a cow and you lost x dollars. Feed a calf and you lost x dollars. Those costs can be documented. By ignoring BSE as a disaster in and of itself and lumping BSE support in with CAIS then the effective BSE support government has provided to producers has been reduced by increasing feeding inventories, structural change calculations, increased herd size numbers even when keeping cull cows was a BSE survival strategy and droughts of 2002 and earlier. The two levels of government have effectively saved billions of dollars in 2003 and 2004 BSE producer support by saying CAIS will take care of the disaster while allowing BSE to eat up reference margins and leaving producers high and dry in 2005 and beyond. CAIS is no way to see producers through BSE.

I am reminded of the class action suit that was filed claiming the federal government was responsible for Canada’s BSE crisis by not taking reasonable steps to protect our industry when it was recognized that BSE was a problem in Britain. By continuing to import ruminant protein and live cattle from Britain after BSE was discovered the federal government and for that matter the U.S. government too was negligent, there is no doubt of that. Saying CAIS can handle the problem or as Alberta did, say they have helped enough, is a dereliction and abandonment of governments responsibility in the BSE crisis.

Producers need to think of CAIS as a bank account. Producers built up equity in that bank account in years past through production margins. Now government is saying you have to draw down that bank account because of BSE, that is where your support is coming from. Yet in a few short years that bank account runs dry and has already run dry for many producers.

Then what? What happens next year? Is that fair?

[farmers_son]

with regard to using an accountant to fill out CAIS forms, I have mentioned this before, one fellow I know was told by his accountant that he would get nothing in the way of CAIS payments so he filled out his own information and sent it off. He received a check for $6000.00, and promptly found a new accountant !

[grassfarmer]

BWC, You make an important mistake in your argument one that is critical to this debate. The UK introduced it's first feed ban in the late 80s which was sloppy and not enforced - it was not until 1996 and a total market collapse that they went back and implemented a proper feed ban. So Canada is not the first country to have had cases since introducing a feed ban and is hence in a better position in the "eyes of the world" than you reckon. Post ban cases have occured all over Europe giving weight to the argument that MBM in feed is either not the cause, or more likely, not the only cause of BSE.

Farmers_son, I share your concerns over the possible loss of boxed beef sales that would be a real disaster. As far as CAIS goes I don't like the program, I came here to farm in a non- subsidy atmosphere and it is not turning out to be that way. Having said that you have to work with whatever programs are in place and CAIS is it for now. Personally the droughts of 2002 and 2003 cost me substantially more than BSE has cost me and I think that is reflected in the large 2003 CAIS payout I received.

Emrald1, As I mentioned a while back my accountant was warning people not to spend their payments too quickly as the Alberta Government cut a lot of cheques in late April before they had actually done the paperwork on the CAIS applications. There is a good chance many of these payments will be clawed back. I hope that wasn't what your friend received, I know my payment came to around $6000 more than the accountant reckoned I was due so I am partly expecting to have to repay around that sum.

[grassfarmer]

CAIS certainly doesn't give a person any security, and it sounds like our Premier has indicated that he thinks it will be two years before the border opens, of course the AAFRD Minister pointed out that it was speculation.

[cowman]

I never got anything from CAIS and the accountant never beat me up too bad! Just another government rip off in my opinion. Sort of like the old Canada Pension plan or the RRSP schemes!
But I have to admit all these various schemes do keep a small army of people working busy as bees! Why if we didn't have the government employing all these people they might have to get a real job and actually produce something!
I often have pondered how much money must be spent on all the government jobs including all the so-called private corporations that have only government largesse for their bread and butter? Or businesses that cater to the rules and regulations that other businesses are forced to adhere to by the government?
I suspect that about one third of the Canadian workforce is employed either directly or indirectly by the government, but I have no figures to back that up.
If the day ever came when we could eliminate about half those jobs right off the top would things be better or worse?

[farmers_son]

According to Stats Can. 824,000 people are employed in the public administration sector out of a workforce of 16 million or a little over 5%. 324,000 are employed in agriculture, 2%. That is more people than are employed in the fishing, oil and gas, forestry and mining sectors combined. Of Canada's goods producing sectors, agriculture is the third largest employer, following manufacturing and construction. Only 25% of Canada's workforce is employed in the goods producing sector, the rest or 12 million work in the services sector. In the service sector 17% of the total workforce are employed in education or the health fields, a significant portion of which could be thought of as working indirectly for government.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ40.htm