Friends like these?

[farmers_son]

Coppertop: I am willing to give honest Ed a chance like I believe most Albertans are.

Grassfarmer: Your post re 16% or a small group of people influencing the government is most interesting. I am thinking of R-Calf as an example. I would put it to you that at least on occasion government will use a group such as R-Calf or possibly using your example the anti-war protestors to justify what the government wanted to do anyway.

It has always been my impression that the U.S. government’s blockade of the Canada-U.S. border to beef in 2003 had more to do with U.S. disappointment over the lack of Canadian participation in the Iraq war than it had anything to do with concerns over food safety. The U.S. administration was under pressure to justify its trade position from the Canadian government but as well from other trading partners who saw the U.S. putting the squeeze on what was the world’s number one trading relationship for crass political reasons. Along comes R-Calf...

The U.S could have chosen to ignore R-Calf but instead gives the protectionist lobby group a profile so it can increase its membership. Perhaps I am way out in left field with this but the U.S. could have handled any concerns over reopening the border to Canadian beef very differently than it did, for instance hearing any complaints from groups like R-Calf in the U.S. trade courts instead of Montana district court with Judge Cebull. Did a small group like R-Calf influence government or did the government use R-Calf as a scapegoat to justify its own policy goals.

Or using your example of the anti-war protestors, did they influence government or did they happen to be an excuse for Europe to distance themselves militarily from a rogue United States that was acting like the bully of the free world.

[coppertop]

farmers_son, the fact that the former Liberal government in Ottawa had immigration policies that let every radical into this country likely had something to do with the US position.

I hope we have better relations with the US, and perhaps it will pay off this time. I see a lot of hype in the media about OTM cattle entering the US, hopefully its not all smoke and mirrors to get the industry's hopes up.

[rkaiser]

While the 16% thing is interesting grassfarmer, and the comparison to Rcalf by farmer_son holds a bit of merit; how about the less than 1% of producers who vote as delegates at the APB AGM? And vote against resolutions that were passed, and in some cases, unanimously passed at zone meetings. The gang mentality at these AGM's is amazing to watch. Or do the delegates simply become better informed than those who they represent? Cowman says he supports most all of the resolutions put down at the AGM, and so would more than 16% or I will say 80% of voters at every zone meeting where grassroots producers attend.

What is the case farmer_son? Do the delegates learn something when they become delegates that the rest of don't know?

I am with grassfarmer on the issue of becoming one of these learned delegates. We too are meeting with the new Ag minister and things are moving ahead nicely I might ad. Where would I be if I were a delegate. Forced to take the gang approach and back off my BSE testing beliefs because the gang said it wasn't gonna happen. Sure wouldn't be able to step out from the gang and approach the government on the issue once it has been decided by the gang.

Any talk of ABP being a democratic voice of the primary producer is a joke. - Pure and simple.

Listened to that go

[coppertop]

randy, if you were an ABP delegate you would not be meeting the Minister. That is reserved for the Chairman and Vice Chairman....you and grassfarmer have a lot better chance to raise awareness than if you were a delegate !!!

I think the most important thing to impress upon the Minister is that there are other views within the cow/calf sector besides those of the ABP executive, and of course the Cattle Feeders. Those two groups have had the ear of the last two ag ministers, and deputies, so hopefully you have some success getting your ideas across.

[farmers_son]

rkaiser: Well, I have never agreed with those resolutions. While you and I agree on the packing plant issue there does seem to be two schools of thought on BSE testing. However if we keep finding positives those in favour of more testing may win the day. I for one hope that does not happen.

It has been my impression that we tend to find a BSE positive or two in January. I will breathe easier once we get past January without finding another one. It is too much to hope for that the next BSE positive is in the U.S.? Slim chance, I do not think anyone believes the U.S. is testing fair and square.

[cowman]

I've said this before...and I'll say it again: We MUST be honest with the consumer. The idea of shoot, shovel, and shut up...should never be a option!
I think everyone knows the US has been practicing the "three S" policy? The fact is they should have found a lot more cases...but if you don't look...you don't find?
I find it kind of funny they are concerned about letting in any cows born before March 1999...because they might contaminate their "pristine" beef industry...but have no idea how many thousands of pre-1999 Canadian cows are alive and well, living in their country! They don't want to talk about that?
One of the mentioned resolutions that I really support is the government paying for the RFID tags? Food safety, health issues, and international trade are all Federal responsibilities? It was the federal government who let those European cows and protein meal into this country? It was the Federal government who said it is okay to feed cows to cows? Do you think they should have some responsibility? Do you think it is only one segment of the cattle business that should bare all the cost, labour and liability of ID traceback?

[farmers_son]

The removal of SRMs is what provides food saftey, both in Canada and the United States.

The reality is that one sector of the livestock industry ended up bearing all the cost of BSE and still is. Is that fair? No but that is how it is.

However the opportunity is there to get $30 a head if you retain ownership of your calves, I did and others did too. I think the answer is figure out ways to make those tags pay rather then set up a bureaucracy to distribute the cost of traceback "more fairly".

[grassfarmer]

Presumably you are only getting a $30 premium on your fats because a minority of producers are age verifying their calves. At the point most, or all, producers get with the program either voluntarily or otherwise the premium will disappear but the cost will remain. We feel we are getting a premium built into our calf price at this moment also because ours are age verified where few others seem to be. It needn't take a complicated beurocracy to implement this program - when tag sellers have to notify the sale of each bag of tags to a registered holding already how hard would it be to have this trigger off a refund of the price from Government?

[farmers_son]

I checked with the UFA and the RFID buttons are coming on sale for $58 a bag or $2.32 each. I am not sure where the burning issue is with that.

For my $2.32 I get $30 bonus on every fat calf I sell, I have a double tag (with my ordinary Allflex tag) which guarantees that I can identify each calf for my own record keeping purposes and there is the potential for value adding with the tag (e.g. carcass feedback).

When I weighted my calves this fall some calves had lost their Allflex tag yet I was able to replace their tag with the right number because I could cross check with the RFID tag. That helps my herd records.

On a ligher note, if those RFID tags were good enough they will let me track those darn coyotes who are coming around. The tag is the first thing they eat.