What should our groups have done?

[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

[blackjack]

... add me to the group of complainers... the post by rkaiser and kpb hit the nail on the head...

[grassfarmer]

My thinking has changed on this ABP/CCA deal in recent months. Yes, I agree with all the comments rkaiser and kpb make about them but they have acted this way because the majority of producers let them. Last Fall producers should have had 400 members at every meeting, enough to pass every resolution that the majority of "producers" actually want. With that in hand we could have sent a delegation of 1000 to the AGM, even if it was only to stand outside the building and attract media attention to the fact that this group does not always act in it's members interests.
We are lucky to live in a democracy it's a shame that the majority of Canadian beef producers don't appreciate that or are too lazy to act on it.
I'm with you guys that have been active throughout this crisis but my frustration is toward the majority of beef producers who have remained inactive - they are the ones that are to blame for ABP acting the way it does. They are also the ones that are promising to invest in a new producer owned packing plant - not now - but the day it is up and running. That way they don't risk a cent, meanwhile they will be the first to settle for any higher prices achievable by shipping live cattle across the border.

[Willowcreek]

ABP, CCA, NCBA, CFIA, USDA, and the bureaucrats and politicians of both countries are all bought,paid for, and sleeping in the bed of the same people-- The AMI, Cargills, Tysons, and multinational corporations....There will be no change until the producers realize this... Big-C gave Canadians another alternative, but it appears they do not want to change...They want to forever live in the shadow of the US and ride upon the backs of the US producer and the US's continuing trade agreements- which will get even more interesting when Cargil, Tyson, and the boys get there investments in Australia, Central and South America up and running full speed...

[cowman]

So I wonder, for all the people who put up cash for feasability studies etc., if you got good value for your buck?
Or was it just a few more bucks tossed out the window and a sweet job for some snake oil salesman?
Are any of these schemes still going ahead or are they basically garbaged? I thought the plant at Sherwood park was supposed to break ground in March as they stated they had aquired the land, had the financing in place etc.?
So what was the final tally of all this "Canadian expansion"? Well we know Cargill/IBP moved ahead, and definitely Sunterra, and Ed Paull got the Salmon Arm plant up and running...but what others? What happened to the NGC plant at Pincher Creek?
I would suggest that maybe the majority of cattle producers weren't all that wrong to avoid putting their hard earned dollars into new packing ventures? Sort of like...How smart is it to build a general store besides Walmart? Cargill and IBP eat little packers just like Walmart does Mom and Pop stores!

[grassfarmer]

I think you have identified the runners Cowman, apologies if there are any others currently building that i'm unaware of but these are the plants I know about: As I understand it the Ranchers Own (Spruce Grove) was scuppered when Cargill bought out Caravelle(sp?)Foods. This value adding plant was going to be a market for a lot of the OTM beef.
Peace Country Tender Beef in Dawson Creek are short of money / members. The existing members contributed a minimum stake of $600 but they are now being asked to cough up another $1500 each, to add to some Government money to get moving. A tough sell in the current climate.
The Bentley boys, as rkaiser calls them, are at $18 million - they need $30 million to buy Nillsons. A long way off and at the end of the day this changes ownership of a plant rather than create new capacity.
TK ranch (Biggs)have also fallen well short of their $5 million target for a Federal / organic certified plant at Hanna. I hear they are rethinking the proposal and might aim for a smaller plant instead.I really would like to see this one built as they have 10 years experience of selling high end beef and seem great business people.
Cowman, I would suggest that the majority of producers were very wrong not to invest in producer owned plants - it is the only way I can see to break the packer monopoly and give producers a long term chance of controlling their destiny.

[rkaiser]

Gotta correct you on one grassfarmer. Ivan Boles, with the Spruce Grove group came out to a conference I attended last week and dispelled rumors of them folding. Concern over the Better Beef takeover caused one creditor to back down, but that has not stopped their forward movement.