What should our groups have done?

[farmers_son]

While the Americans were the ones who closed the border and it really fell to them to “open” the border such as it is we should not overlook the important fact that our beef organizations played a crucial role in maintaining consumer confidence in Canadian beef at home. Our domestic consumer is still our number one market and in spite of some very negative comments being made about Canadian beef we are today in a position where we focus on normalizing trade with the U.S. instead of rebuilding at home.

Second our beef organizations and representatives did a lot of work to keep producer confidence from collapsing through the crisis. The Canadian cow herd grew since 2003 in a time when a major sell off of cattle would have caused a wreck. If it had been up to our beef organizations to open the border the border would have been open mid summer 2003 but producers should not overlook what was accomplished.

Assuming the “serious producer” comment was made in an email to smcgrath76 by someone who could have posted those comments here but did not I do not think the remark deserves the time of day.

Perhaps now that we have live cattle crossing the border the ABP/CCA can pay more attention to the problem of unfair pricing of live cattle in North America, not just Canada. Part of that solution could well be a producer owned packing plant. I do not think the ABP or CCA is against producer packing plants in any way shape or form but the view is producers are coming together now to build those plants and that is the best way to go. I personally believe it is necessary for our beef organizations to get more hands on if we are serious about increasing packing capacity and restoring a measure of competition on the Canadian side of the border but not everyone shares that opinion.

I am serious when I say North American producers need to work together instead of viewing each other as competition to be overcome. It is not just the American producers who are pursuing an American first policy, I hear Canadian producers talking about Canada gaining an advantage in this market and that market when in fact the markets are all controlled by packing plants that are international and global in scope. It is something we really need to consider if we ever hope to improve the situation of producers in Canada, U.S. and Mexico. By the way, lets not forget the Mexicans were our big time friends throughout the BSE crisis.

[smcgrath76]

Interesting comments. Some provincial groups such as MCPA do have a refundable checkoff. Others such as SSGA have an optional membership.
Based on comments I have heard regarding participation (for example in ABP), I think I must live in one of the most active zones here in the NE. We will generally get a pretty full house at zone meetings in the fall.
I agree that most of these delegates do this out of the goodness of their heart for the interest of the industry. Often I think that their service on ABP or other like organizations is their first introduction to the entire production chain from farmgate to plate.
I agree with F_S on a couple of things. The US is the largest consumer market in the world and it happens to be not only next door, but also part of a NAFTA agreement. While we may be pissed at the US as producers, we should ignore this market at our peril.
I also agree with searching out further markets, particularly in the rapidly developing Asian Rim.
More domestically owned and controlled capacity AND FURTHER PROCESSING you bet. This is all tied in with expanding markets, and obtaining control of our destiny and better prices.
I am not sure how industry groups really fit into these developments in terms of being "hands on" without benefiting a select group of producers who choose to participate in these types of ventures with their own capital.
As far as the serious/not serious comment, my two cents are that there is no real way to figure this out based on herd size/economic indicator or otherwise. I do know that there are producers who care about what they are doing and how it gets done and unfortunately there are some who don't. My comments were in no way intended to offend, but I do think that it is an important point in the discussion of direction, as I see a lot of organizations focusing on "bigger" producers, rather than all or serious producers. In my opinion this is due largely to the current commodity nature of our business.

[cakadu]

I believe domestic consumers were doing more to support their local producers because it was the producers getting out there with product i.e. more direct marketers. As a result more consumers had a better idea of where their beef came from and how it got to them. Producers themselves were more in the public eye in a lot of respects than the organizations were.

The other thing that was a big help was when the news broke that the packers got the lions share of the bailout money. This was one time when consumers saw a direct cause and effect and to me, this caused them to throw their support behind beef.

We have a food safety system in this country that consumers have come to rely on and the fact that the science told them it was safe was a significant factor in the confidence, that and the fact that the condemned animal that started all of this never hit the food chain.

From what I read in these posts over the past 2 years and learned from talking with people, I would say that many folks felt that we would have been much better off had we focused on producer owned plants and finding new markets instead of continually arguing that the border should have been open.

I'm not entirely convinced that integrated our markets even further is the way to go, nor am I convinced that relying on the market to the south of us is the best either.

The single best thing we can do for ourselves is to stop selling live cattle across the border and keep the value here with producers and in Canada.

I wonder now how we will progress with accomplishing that.

[cakadu]

I think that Agricultural Societies across the province did a super job of raising community awareness of the crisis in the beef industry and many of them initiated beef on a bun events, as did many municipalities.
The support the industry received from Albertans was second to none and much of it as you say Linda was community driven. I would venture to say that ABP can't really take much credit for the outpouring of support for the industry. They certainly did their part but community organizations were the driving force behind the ongoing support. Many producers did start their own beef sales and truckload sales are common sights across the province.

[cakadu]

I believe domestic consumers were doing more to support their local producers because it was the producers getting out there with product i.e. more direct marketers. As a result more consumers had a better idea of where their beef came from and how it got to them. Producers themselves were more in the public eye in a lot of respects than the organizations were.

The other thing that was a big help was when the news broke that the packers got the lions share of the bailout money. This was one time when consumers saw a direct cause and effect and to me, this caused them to throw their support behind beef.

We have a food safety system in this country that consumers have come to rely on and the fact that the science told them it was safe was a significant factor in the confidence, that and the fact that the condemned animal that started all of this never hit the food chain.

From what I read in these posts over the past 2 years and learned from talking with people, I would say that many folks felt that we would have been much better off had we focused on producer owned plants and finding new markets instead of continually arguing that the border should have been open.

I'm not entirely convinced that integrated our markets even further is the way to go, nor am I convinced that relying on the market to the south of us is the best either.

The single best thing we can do for ourselves is to stop selling live cattle across the border and keep the value here with producers and in Canada.

I wonder now how we will progress with accomplishing that.

[cakadu]

I believe domestic consumers were doing more to support their local producers because it was the producers getting out there with product i.e. more direct marketers. As a result more consumers had a better idea of where their beef came from and how it got to them. Producers themselves were more in the public eye in a lot of respects than the organizations were.

The other thing that was a big help was when the news broke that the packers got the lions share of the bailout money. This was one time when consumers saw a direct cause and effect and to me, this caused them to throw their support behind beef.

We have a food safety system in this country that consumers have come to rely on and the fact that the science told them it was safe was a significant factor in the confidence, that and the fact that the condemned animal that started all of this never hit the food chain.

From what I read in these posts over the past 2 years and learned from talking with people, I would say that many folks felt that we would have been much better off had we focused on producer owned plants and finding new markets instead of continually arguing that the border should have been open.

I'm not entirely convinced that integrated our markets even further is the way to go, nor am I convinced that relying on the market to the south of us is the best either.

The single best thing we can do for ourselves is to stop selling live cattle across the border and keep the value here with producers and in Canada.

I wonder now how we will progress with accomplishing that.

[ALICIA]

I haven't been on for a while, but I still keep in touch with the coments being posted.
The live cattle will stay in Canada as long as the Canadian Buyers out bid the American Buyers.
Will this happen?

[ALICIA]

In all fairness to ABP and CCA, I think their mandate was originally set by producers. If that mandate has changed or is no longer applicable, producers need to take the lead in making sugggestions for change. As cowman says, producers likely aren't all on the same page when it comes to what they expect their industry organizations to do for them.
Hopefully the zone meetings this fall will be well attended and positive suggestions will come forward vs the inane complaining. I have't heard what our zone reps have done since they were elected.

[sagewood]

Well boys and girls and dreamers of all ages--hopefully you had your radio on today and heard Governor Switzer of Montana rally the troops state-side by saying that those evil mad-cow infested Canadian cattle will have to pay an entry tariff and be branded with a big CAN on the hip and be checked by their vets as they sure don't want any mad cows in their country. He is encouraging all the border states to follow his lead and hoping that states like Colorado and Ohio etc. will also charge for any Cdn cattle 'passing through' their state. You want to talk about being p...d --I am so mad tonight that I think I will never set foot in that country again. I would be happy to buy totally Canadian if I could find the product I need made by a Canadian company. Dream on if you think that for one minute the market will ever open to those bunch of tunnel-visioned, ignorant, self-serving Americans--they are a bunch of bullies--they take what they want from Canada and they take it at their price and this - as far as the cattle business goes-- is never going to change.

I have 'seriously' been in the cattle business for well over 30 years, and did not wish to leave it with a bitter taste in my mouth, but you know--if those of us 'less big' producers with 7 0 - 100 head cannot get a decent price for our cattle, then by all means, let the 'big, serious' guys get after it and then watch the price of beef go through the roof. It is enough to make me become a vegetarian! As far as ABP goes, once the feed lot boys got their foot in the door and did not have to be elected, then ABP was doomed to serve one segment of the industry alone. I was never in favour of a return of the checkoff fee, in order that advertising, budgeting and so forth could continue with some sort of plan, however, at this fall's meetings, I darn well will be suggesting that those of us who are 'not serious' in the business, need to keep all the cash we can muster and that we need our checkoff fees for shoes for the babies!

[sagewood]

The cost for this extra scrutiny by the Montana vets is supposed to be $5.00 per head OR MORE depending on whether the cattle have to be unloaded or not.
I think this is just the beginning, of course the Montana state government is going to do RCALF's bidding and push this to the limit.

[rkaiser]

I've noticed a bit of defence for our ABP/CCA here lately and I will personally not deny that the folks who put their name up for election, and ultimately become delegates, are folks with determination to help the industry (in the beginning).

However. Anyone who puts his of her opinion in front of the public on any issue needs also to realise the critism that goes along with their stand.

I beleive that emerald talked of bringing forward ideas rather than complaints to the upcoming fall producer meetings of ABP. What do you really think happens at these meetings emerald. Resolutions are passed by producers in a democratic fashion. Resolutions are ideas. Resolutions are then passed on to be cut down and in most cases dismissed by the delegate body in the kangaroo court known as the Annual general meeting. These meetings are filled with intimidation tactics by the highrarchy of ABP including the big industry players who think they got that way because of their wisdom.

I see a complete lack of producer direction in ABP from the grass roots level. If you want to call that complaining, so be it.

I saw, and have been part, of many good producer ideas brought forward to the ABP and have watched as the leadership did nothing but complain about these ideas.

Has the direction of ABP been correct. Well the border is open (today) - still a pretty wide basis - and the only slaughter capacity increase to date has been accomplished by Cargill and Tyson. Even if a few other plants open, this debacle has accomplished one thing for sure. That being the increased share of slaughter capacity and thus lesser competition caused by Cagill and Tyson's reaping of the rewards.

Tell me that direction, fully backed by ABP/CCA is good for the cattle producers of this country.

But hey,,,,,,,,,,,,, I'm just a complainer!

I feel left out.... Why does Sean warrant private Email's from the ABP folks reading this site setting him straight? Where is my letter setting me straight?

rpkaiser@telusplanet.net

[kpb]

Some of you guys should be on the Comedy Network. rkaiser has it right on the mark when he points out that our producer groups have done nothing in the past two years to further the interests of the producers and, furthermore, are not open to ideas about building slaughter capacity, etc.

Inane complaining? Geez, I guess we should all just be nice little boys and girls and pay our check-offs and go away. Let them have our money and do god knows what with it because they are so much smarter than us. Emerald, I asked you before and you never answered but I'll try again, please tell me one thing that any producer group in this country has done in the last two years to increase the slaughter capacity in this country so that we may strive for independence from the multi-national packers.

To say that farmers are divided on this issue is a complete red herring. Farmers and ranchers are not at all divided on the issues of being independent from the multi's. The disagreements only lie on how this is to be achieved and these could be resolved if the matter was open to discussion by the oh so wise producer groups. The BIG C proposal comes to mind as one proposal.

The fact is that the producer groups are made up of vested interests and not too many of those interests represent the common cow-calf producer. I guess, like rkaiser, I'm just another one of the complainers but at least I'm not an apologist for tired and useless groups that take the producers' hard-earned money and waste it when it could be used for something constructive to benefit us all.


kpb