ABP Resolutions

[grassfarmer]

I didn't get time to watch the resolutions debate so anyone who did watch/hear it would you care to share the important ones? Better still Loric would you be able to post them here? just a heading and defeated or approved would suffice.

[loric]

I just went to ask the executive assistant when she will have the resolutions ready for publishing. She is dealing with typing minutes from three days of meetings, so will have the resolutions ready for me to post Monday.

Also, I am hoping to figure out the software I have and be able to post video of the resolutions on the ABP website (my aim is to do this next week). The webcast people gave us tapes of the debates. I want to cut them up and put the clips of each resolution debate online so producers can download a small clip to watch regarding a resolution they are interested in. This way a large file doesn't have to be downloaded in order to access a small piece they want to watch.

In the meantime, if there are specific resolutions you are interested in - I can give you an answer on if they were defeated or passed.

[Sawbones]

There's a glimmer of hope GF. Contrary to what you surmised, there were 29 for 26 against funding a feasibility study of re-starting the former Rancher's Beef plant to be used for the establishment of value chains. Although most of the discussions revolved around ALMA and Cool, there were some indications of looking for ways to change the status quo. Maybe someone should send me rose colored glasses for Christmas too

[rkaiser]

What's yer adress Sawbones.....LOL

Sounds to me like the meeting was less controversial than in the past and like Sawbones says --- a feeling of changing the ABP status quo.

[grassfarmer]

Sawbones, I don't think I ever commented negatively on your resolution re the Balzac plant? Reading through all the resolutions (without the benefit of knowing if they were passed or not)it strikes me that what is missing is the main issue identified by the NFU document. Only one resolution - Mr Kaisers, that ABP "conduct a study on the negative impact of packer ownership..." and if I understand correctly even it got the sideways shuffle to be decided "by committee".
I also found it interesting that the only resolution raised re levy was "...a non-refundable check off remain with ABP". Was that really the only resolution passed by any zone meeting in the province on the issue? It certainly made it nice and easy for the delegates to vote - I assume it passed?

[Sawbones]

GF..didn't mean to imply that you were negative..quite the contrary but you have seemed to imply that working within their framework was a waste of time. I think there is a slight change of attitude especially with a few delegates who are starting to realize that our problem is more fundamental than COOL,ALMA, the dollar, feed or fuel prices. The basic question relates back to the viability of a beef industry under the current structure and that we need fundamental changes. Part of this would be addressed with an answer to Randy's question. When NFU, ABP and BIA all get on the same page and look at the basic flaws in our beef industry, maybe we'll make progress. Attacking ABP's check-off is the same strategy that Harper used and will be met with the same response..totally non productive. The new Sask Cattleman's Association, Manitoba and BC along with Alberta producer groups must work together. Western Canada has 85% of the beef cattle in Canada and should seriously develop a comprehensive review of the beef industry.

[grassfarmer]

Sawbones, I'm pleased to hear that you see a "slight change of attitude especially with a few delegates who are starting to realize that our problem is more fundamental than COOL,ALMA, the dollar, feed or fuel prices." I still think as an organisation ABP has an awful lot of catching up to do. It was only weeks ago I was getting lectured at a fall producer meeting that packer ownership of cattle is a good thing! As an organisation they still fail to acknowledge that our major problems lie in concentration in the processing sector. There is nothing I would like better than to see a strong, united front of producer groups singing off the same song sheet about the solutions we need. I think the recent NFU livestock document was a brave attempt to highlight the tough questions that need to be asked of our politicians and industry leaders. I hope other producer groups will use the information highlighted within to further the cause of all beef producers.

As for attacking ABP's check-off - I think that we are being denied a basic democratic right - to allocate our check-off dollars to the organisation we wish to represent us. I don't understand this western idea that opposition is bad, dictatorship is good - all governments and organisations need competition to keep them honest and working hard - ABP is no different. Seeking to level the financial playing field between producer organisations is a valid goal in my mind as it would lead to better, not worse representation of producers interests. I think it does us a huge disservice that ABP has a $12 million budget gifted to them each year whereas the NFU will struggle to raise $20,000 to distribute the findings of their livestock document.
$12 million to defend packer ownership or $20,000 to highlight the real causes of our current crisis - which do you think is the best way to spend producers hard earned dollars?

[Sawbones]

While I have to agree with you on most of your argument on directional check-off, I am concerned about the timing of that discussion. I think we have to concentrate on what is common rather than what divides. I agree with you totally on packer concentration. I could argue with you that I feel that it was unfair for Canada Gold to get $250,000 from the government when we got our start from producer dollars and were denied grants. The NFU working paper of Darren on the Farm Crisis is a great start. We need to have ABP and ALMA along with the Sask gov fund an independent review of the beef industry.

[per]

There is probably never going to be a good time to discuss refundable check-off from the ABP's perspective. The whole discussion goes right back to trust and responsibility and respect. If a position of cooperation and communication was taken with respect to the BIA and the NFU and others, maybe we could figure out where we are and steer to were we need to be. You are absolutely right Sawbones, the only way forward is cooperation. The trick will be to find common ground on each others song sheets and rewrite the songs that are contentious. ABP can't just hand out their Christmas carols and say if we all sing from this book we will have a choir. I am looking forward to Ricks tenure. I hope it will have a different tone.

[grassfarmer]

Yes we need co-operation, but we also need action. Take for example the packer ownership issue. At last year's ABP AGM there were two resolutions on the issue: "that they lobby for federal legislation that packers cannot own or feed livestock...." and "that ABP take the necessary steps to stop the packing plants from owning cattle for more than 72 hours" Both were defeated.
Fast forward a year and when I raised a similar resolution at my zone meeting the delegates weighed in with their strong support of packer ownership to sway the audience to vote against the resolution. Cue Randy's resolution which is essentially a watered down version of the same resolution "ABP conduct a study on the negative impact of packer ownership..." which was passed (despite one ABP stalward in the audience objecting to the word "negative" being used in the resolution and inviting Randy to change it LOL)
So now the only resolution on the issue to be addressed by ABP this year gets shuffled to a side committee and is only a request to conduct a study on the negative impact of packer ownership in any case. Whether they do or don't go ahead with this study remains to be seen. If they do commission a study how long it takes and what the finding might be remains to be seen. Again if they commission the study and find that there is a detremental effect will they then act on it? when three years from now?, 5 years from now?
I think this shows how the democratic process within ABP really works - I am not optimistic that they are changing, they are certainly not changing fast enough. I suspect a year from now you will look back Sawbones and see that the ABP policy on packer ownership is still one of total support - but they have pulled the wool over producer's eyes for another year by giving the impression they are doing something on our behalf.

[per]

So that takes us back to the issue of Check-off, GF. When it gets down to it the only way the ABP will sing a note or two from any other song sheet is if they are held accountable for their income. Maybe this is absolutely the right time for this conversation, Sawbones.

[loric]

The resolutions are posted on the homepage of the ABP website on the bottom right corner. www.albertabeef.org

[grassfarmer]

Thanks for posting that Loric - I think you need to check it though as there appears to be a mistake in it. Resolutions 17 18 show the same resolution (Re Balzac plant)being defeated once and carried once. Unless ABP are just keeping their options open on that one, LOL

As for the rest of them it could be said it was "much ado about nothing"
There appear to be 5 broadly in favor of the ALMS (and components thereof) and 4 broadly against as well as a few other related issues like calling for Stelmach to fire Groenveld (defeated thankfully)

There really is nothing of substance in there at all to address the issues of the day other than maybe #1 where the ABP will lobby through CCA for the Federal Government to launch trade action against COOL.(Carried - good resolution)

Then there are the nonsense issues - like lobbying the AB government to provide high speed internet access to rural Alberta. What a ridiculous waste of producer check-off dollars and ABP time.
Actually looking at the Balzac plant resolution I don't know how bright it is - sorry Sawbones! The resolution says ABP will fund a feasibility study into the cost of start up and operation. Since I'm assuming ABP are not going to fund this(nor likely will producers) wouldn't it have been smarter having ABP lobby the Provincial Government to conduct the study - or better still just have ABP lobby the AB Gov. to fund the establishment of the "packing incubator"?

Nowhere do there appear resolutions to address the seriousness of the situation the industry faces. How about using some of the suggested NFU solutions?
1. Deal with packer and retailer power.
2. Deal with packer and retailer power.
3. Deal with packer and retailer power.
4. Deal with packer and retailer power.
5. Deal with packer and retailer power.
6. Aim to create farmer owned packing capacity.
7. Alter regulations to encourage local abattoirs.
8. Build collective marketing agencies.
9. Test for BSE.
10. Better balance domestic production and consumption.
11. Reduce anti-biotic use.
12. Curtail hormone useage.
13. Develop markets for grass-fed beef.

[Sawbones]

Totally agree with 1-5 and also include 6..By apssing the resolution 18, ABP have actually indicated an interest in the feasibility of AN INCUBATOR. Now if we can convince ALMA to conduct an entire industry review along with funding from Sask Ag and the new Keystone project in Manitoba, we may have the beginning of a united from. With the basis providing a price differential in excess of $100/head, we should have the funding to provide producers with access to their own plant..if they so desire. The meat from Canada that is already separated in the package should not sell for less than its American counterpart. Still a lot of questions and blanks that need to be filled in but may be seeing a slight change in political will

[Sawbones]

Totally agree with 1-5 and also include 6..By apssing the resolution 18, ABP have actually indicated an interest in the feasibility of AN INCUBATOR. Now if we can convince ALMA to conduct an entire industry review along with funding from Sask Ag and the new Keystone project in Manitoba, we may have the beginning of a united from. With the basis providing a price differential in excess of $100/head, we should have the funding to provide producers with access to their own plant..if they so desire. The meat from Canada that is already separated in the package should not sell for less than its American counterpart. Still a lot of questions and blanks that need to be filled in but may be seeing a slight change in political will