Canadian Farmers Have the Farm Policy They Wanted

[HAYMAKER]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian Farmers Have the Farm Policy They Wanted - 11/29/2005



OMAHA (DTN) -- Canadian farmers have the farm policy they deserve, says
ag commentator Jim Romahn.
"Most of what exists today is the result of farmers' requests," he says
in a CBC editorial. "True, the policies and programs have often come too late
and are too little to satisfy farmers. But they are almost entirely a response
to what farmers have asked for."
"Take, for example, subsidies. When they're asked, farmers always say they
would like to be paid from the marketplace, not via government subsidies.
So how come we have so many subsidies? Because farmers have asked for them!"

"Farmers, their leaders and government may have gone down the farm aid
road with the best of intentions, but it hasn't led us to a better place."
"We need to come to grips with the fact that we no longer have the world's
lowest cost of production for agricultural commodities. Brazil and Argentina
are emerging as the world's lowest-cost producers of corn and soybeans. That
will eventually expand to pork, poultry and beef raised on low-cost corn and
soybeans. And then down the value chain to further-processed products."
Romahn contends that If farmers across the country stood up and said, 'No
matter what else, make sure you are enhancing our competitiveness,' I think
politicians would listen.
"It's just that no one seems to be asking," he concludes.

[rkaiser]

Okay Haymaker, just what is it that you seem to think you have discovered here?

[silverback]

I'm guessing the point is that if our gov't agencies had spent more time and energy trying to enhance the value of the products produced on the prairies, we would all be less inclined to be looking to the mailbox for survival?

Looking back, it seems that nobody really worried about shipping raw product to someone else who would ship it back to us at a higher price.

I am trying to remember when we went to an "elected" board of directors at the CWB? Surely they were looking for ways to increase the value of our grain before that time. Right?

[cowman]

The federal government uses subsidies to prop up the farms at a basic subsistance level. Their policies have always allowed cheap imports to keep prices low.
In a real free worldwide trade system Brazil etc. might just plow us under, but we don't have a real free trade system? To achieve that we would all need the same rules and a common currency and taxes so the various governments and banks couldn't manipulate the money supply?
Who knows why some countries are allowed to trade into our markets with cheap imports...imports that may be subsidized more than they are actually worth(Irish beef in the seventies)! Maybe some Quebec firm wants a sweetheart deal in Brazil...so the federal government sells out the grain industry in Canada? I think the Irish beef deal was so Quebec blueberries could enter Ireland! A lot of this stuff is related to dirty corrupt politics.
I often wonder how the media likes to talk about how farmers are subsidized? Don't they realize everyone in Canada is one way or the other on the government tit? The workers have their WCB and EI, the big boys have all these government export agencies and several other schemes to put tax money in their pockets.
In the end Americans have nothing to teach the Canadian farmer about subsidies? If we had half of what they get we would be rolling in clover!

[rkaiser]

I think that your last point cowman, is what Haymakers twisted Rcalf mind is trying to poke at Canadian ranchers. Somehow Rcalf has it figured that Canadian ranchers are all packer followers and that we all take the path of our packer bent CCA. CCA asked for subsidies rather than change to our system due to the influence of Cargill and Tyson and the packer led USDA. Yes Haymaker, CCA bows to this BS policy of bailout money to the rancher while we leave things alone for Cargill and Tyson. Can't stir them up after all. But who on earth do you think the CCA is taking it's orders from. Your very own subsidy begging NCBA/USDA/Multinational packer tag team that's who.

Granted the CCA hasn't the guts to stray, but don't start with the Canadian rancher crap Haymaker. Some may support the path of kissing the multinational packers ass along side our CCA, but the majority would rather not have subsidy, and would rather see less dependence on your American consumer and more exports of value added Canadian beef OFF THIS CONTINENT.

When you are looking to solve American problems with the beef industry Haymaker, look inside America. If BSE has proven one thing, it has proven that Canadian imports to the USA barely affect the price producers in the USA receive for their product. An open border has actually seen an increase in price for the American producer and it would if OTM were allowed as well. The only loss that BSE has caused has been a loss to the Canadain producer and Taxpayer through bailout programs. This money had to go somewhere Haymaker. Where do you think it went. I'll tell you where it went. Right into the pockets of the folks who created the majority of our industries problems in the first place. Does that make you feel proud?

The title of this article could well have used American rather than Canadian in it. Who is your most recognised "producer group" Haymaker? Do they not see most everything the same as our CCA? This is not about producers, this is about some out of control, "so called", producer groups led by the mutinational packers in the BS world of an "integrated beef industry". What a joke.

[farmers_son]

When looking at subsidies it just boggles the mind to see what American producers receive. The list is long, for instance subsidies paid on barley in Montana include:

Production Flexibility - Barley
Market Loss Assistance - Barley
Loan Deficiency - Barley
Direct Payment - Barley
Advance Deficiency - Barley
Counter Cyclical Payment - Barley
Market Gains Farm - Barley
Farm Storage - Barley
Commodity Certificates - Barley
LDP-like Grazing Payments - Barley
Direct Payment Violation - Barley
Prod. Flex. Refund - Barley
Loan Def. Refund - Barley
Loan Def. Refund - Barley
Deficiency - Barley


What about livestock? We would be led to believe that U.S. livestock producers never receive a subsidy. But wait, what about this data for the State of Montana:

Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance $67,168,381
Livestock Compensation Program $35,191,129
American Indian Livestock Feed Program $12,629,969
Livestock Indemnity Payments $3,922,496
Livestock Relief $744,636
Livestock Emergency Assistance Program $508,899
Small Hog Operation $261,606

All told Montana received $120 million dollars in the last ten years for a state with a population smaller than the city of Calgary.

[farmers_son]

good sleuthing FS !!

[Joe-2]

If anyone is interested in just how much $$$$$$ the American farmer/rancher receives in subsidies, just go here,
www.ewg.org/farm/

You can even look up how much subsidy money R-calf's very own Dennis McDonald,of Montana, has pocketed over the years.
Very entertaining site!!!

[cowman]

The main corn subsidy was explained to me like this:
A farmer goes to the appropriate government agency and says he intends to grow say 1000 acres of corn. He estimates he'll get 100 bu./acre or 100,000 bushels? The agency has a price figure of say $3.50 so his corn crop will be worth $350,000? He is then loaned $350,000 with no interest until the crop is sold.
When the crop comes off he sells it into the market for whatever he can get and pays back the loan. If the price is $4/bu. he pockets the 50 cents and pays back the $3.50? If the price of corn is $2.50 that is all he has to pay back thus he pockets the remaining $100,000! The farmer has a real incentive to dump that corn wherever he can, at whatever price!
Don't know if this is exactly how it works, just how it was explained to me? But if that is true how is the Canadian corn farmer ever supposed to compete?

[farmers_son]

There are many farm programs in the U.S. You have described just one, the Non Recourse Marketing Loans but the otheres seem bases on the Loan program. My impression is that the crop actually has to be harvested but once it is you can go to government and get a loan with that crop as collateral based on a per bushel value. It appears that there is 9 months to repay the loan with interest, if the price of grain rises above the loan rate you repay the loan and pocket the cash. If the price of grain is lower than the loan rate you simply hand the crop over to the government who then pays you to store the grain on your farm.

It is difficult for a Canadian to understand these programs while the Americans have basically grown up with them. But it appears that the farmer can get a loan based on a per bushel loan rate but repays the loan based on a loan repayment rate which may be lower. If this happens there is a Marketing Loan Gain which is another subsidy.

However if a producer is eligible for a loan but doesn’t take the loan he is entitled to another subsidy. Loan Deficiency Payment. This may pay if the posted county price of grain is lower than the loan rate plus interest costs. The LDP is available on harvested production. As I read the rules this subsidy could be available on grain that is already sold.

In addition a producer can receive Direct payments of 28 cents per bushel times your program yield times 85% of your acres. Another program is Counter Cyclical Payments which pays if the farm price is above the loan rate but below a ceiling.

The loan rate for corn is US$2.63 per bushel or $3.09 Canadian. For barley it is US$2.24 per bushel or $2.63 Canadian. This creates a floor price for participating producers, they have only to grow the crop and they are assured of at least that price no matter how large their crop was. In contrast we have CAIS which only kicks in during disaster years and quickly drops a producer out of the program if he/she has disasters more than 3 years out of 5 with diminishing benefits each year disasters are experienced.

There are more programs for grain including:
• Agricultural Management Assistance Program;
• Conservation Security Program;
• Conservation Reserve Program;
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program;
• Farmland Protection Program;
• Grassland Reserve Program;
• Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program;
• Wetland Reserve Program.

My comment to Haymaker is if these programs are in place because producers asked for them then it seems U.S. producers are way better at asking than we are. If someone would guarantee me $2.63 a bushel for all the barley I can produce I could really go to town growing crops.

[HAYMAKER]

think that your last point cowman, is what Haymakers twisted Rcalf mind is trying to poke at Canadian ranchers. Somehow Rcalf has it figured that Canadian ranchers are all packer followers and that we all take the path of our packer bent CCA. CCA asked for subsidies rather than change..................BINGO!
Except I dont have a twisted way of thinking ,you do.
You and your kind never give a tinkers damn about suppying packers with enough cattle to manipulate your neighbors markets.
Truth be known you still dont,I hear nothing about controlling captive supplies from you canadians,all I hear is how R CALF is the bad guy,how R CALF is ruining your market,not a damn thing thats positive.............good luck

[rkaiser]

Okay Haymaker I'll bite. What captive supply are you talking about? Is it the one that the packers have had since the border closed due to Canada's lack of access to plants in the USA?

Most Canadian ranchers would rather see less dependence on the American consumer, however your American packers have no intersest in building markets off this continent. Try your best to see what is truly happening for once Haymaker.The world shees a changing. Shees a no longer flat. The American mutinational companies which you helped to build, and Rcalf has made stronger in Canada will go where ever and when ever they want to find a cheaper source. Protectionism is dead. Find another way Haymaker. You know me well enough by now to realise that I do not support the mainstream industry groups which you and I agree are caught up in a false sense of cooperation with the packers. A group like Rcalf is needed to work directly and absolutely for the producer. But Rcalf has this twisted opinion that Canadian producers are the enemy, and that is completely out to lunch. If it isn't Canada Haymaker, it will be Brasil or which ever other country Cargill and Tyson and freinds choose to source product.

You're lost old boy. Read the rest of my post and maybe you could become found.

[cowman]

Haymaker: I hate to tell you this but you lost the Picket case? You do have captive supplies...just like us?
The captive supply thing was here long before Cargill or Tyson ever crossed the border. All those old Canadian packers owned cattle and yep they used them to manipulate the market!
The laws up here say they can do that...and I guess according to the Picket decision...yours do too?
I'm not sure how your hog industry is set up but up here the packers completely control supplies? You don't sell hogs unless you have a contract...and guess who sets the price? Welcome to the 21st century! That is where the cattle market is going to evolve, get used to it? If you don't like it I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to raise cattle?

[HAYMAKER]

Nope you men have it wrong,this packer fight is far from over,matter of fact some of us believe it has just begun.
you see down here the whole country is run by special interest groups,like AMI,usda,ncba,they have deep pockets and lots of political clout.
But I figure it's just a matter of time till R CALF is a major player,the way the membership drives have been going it's a cinch.
We get enough members,we will have enough dollars to buy a few politicians even the playing field some what,then we will see who is gonna win this packer fight.
Next year R CALF elects a new president,a Texan and if they are as successful in TX as they were in the northern states,we could see a big differnce in the outcome of these packer battles.I know talk is cheap and I personally have nothing against you canadian ranchers,matter of fact I have a great respect for yall,but these shell games like "ranch to rail" "farm to fork" strategic alliance BS has got to change,markets need to be fair and open.
why has'nt the canadian rancher pushed for some form of captive supply reform law? Are you afraid of those american packers?.............good luck

[nicolaas]

why has'nt the canadian rancher pushed for some form of captive supply reform law? Are you afraid of those american packers?.............good luck

I went to a ABP meeting this fall, I found out that there was a resolution from the year before on the effects of packer cattle ownership and (don't quote me as I can never seem to locate the actual list of resolutions that come out of these meetings)possibly limiting them to 10% ownership of cattle????? maybe it was 20%??? anyway, not much work was done on the study, as they said it was still under review. I believe they may afraid of offending the packers, cause how hard could a study like that be? A lot of people say NO RULES - free enterprize is the way, my answer is look at deregulation of our utilities - all that supposed "competition" and new utility companies coming in was suppose to make things cheaper for us, not more expensive. Same thing will happen when you are dealing with only a couple major players controlling all the cattle in the feed lots. They definitley will not pay you more.