ABP Resolutions

[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

[smcgrath76]

I agree with 1-5 as well. It was interesting as I watched the No Better Bull show on packer concentration that even the pro-JBS side stated repeatedly that you need at least 3 processors to have competition.
I think one of the challenges with the traditional structure of ABP is displayed here and it warrants discussion. Typically we have fall producer meetings and once a year resolutions are brought forward and either pass or fail, however in the course of a year our industry can see massive changes implemented. ALMS/ALMA, BSE, Packer buyouts, MCOOL, etc. are just a few examples. I am not sure a once annual resolution process is quite nimble enough for today. For example a resolution is brought forward and fails due to slight wording difficulties and it is a whole year before the resolution basically comes back around again. In the meantime we maybe should be working on it. It creates a real challenge. I suspect the same issue plays havoc in many agricultural organizations. It also creates an issue with the role, power and accountability of the Board.

[loric]

I just finished going through all the tapes from the resolutions debate. The clips of the debate will be posted on the ABP website. I will let you know when they are up. The webcast person tells me he is sure he will have them up by January 1st, although said Jan. 5th at the latest. This will give everyone an opportunity to see what the delegates said to each resolution.

[grassfarmer]

Sean, You raise a good point about the structure of ABP and how it is difficult to keep up with current events and also reflect the wishes of producers at the Fall meetings. I have a suggestion. Given the generally low turnout at the fall meetings (relative to #s of cattle producers)I propose that instead of the current set up ABP keep their AGM and their Semi-Annual meeting but have these both open meetings that any producer can attend and participate in. Hold one in Calgary, one in Edmonton, both one day events at a lower cost venue than the AGM currently is, scrap fall producer meetings. THe business of ABP would be conducted publicly, votes taken on the issues would stand or fall on the vote of the delegates and producers attending. If producers want change they will attend and make it happen. Cut out the "them and us" aristocracy we have at the moment and have an organisation that really represents the current views of the producers. Remove the aristocracy replace it with a democracy!!

I would slightly disagree with the observation that you need at least 3 processors to have competition. I think that with 3 or less processors you likely don't even have a functioning marketplace. Between 6 and 10 processors would allows for actual competition.