Mr Kuharski

[Sawbones]

Did anyone hear the interview on CFCW regarding ALMA. Of particular interest was Mr Kuharski talking of "his committee" There was lots said about incorporation, hiring staff and the infusion of more money in the spring and hopefully direction set by April 1. Did anyone hear cost benefit analysis, review of the current business model of the beef industry, or even opinion of the appointed Board members. There was mention of the many meetings telling producers of the purpose of ALMA and LISA. The AB gov is very reluctant to invest in bricks and mortar but I think that once a bureaucracy is built, it will be even more difficult to remove and the book value on the bureacracy may be even less. Let's hear from the other members of the Board who were actually appointed because of their knowlege of the industry. The word "catalyst" doesn't seem to be mentioned much anymore.

[farmers_son]

For a list of the board members see:

http://alma.alberta.ca/app113/almapage?cat1Id=68&tab=2

What most concerns me about the various ALMA board members is that there is not one person on that board that has anything in common with the typical cattle producer in this province. There is not one person on that board who shares our goals, our concenrs, our values.

It should not surprise us then if the ALMA board takes our industry in directions that are not in our best interest or that they reshape our industry in ways that do not allow farmers and ranchers like you and I to survive.

I have never thought it was an accident that Minister Groeneveld told producers they would have to exit the industry if they did not buy into the ALMA strategy. Fewer producers is a core strategy and expected outcome of ALMA. There is no place for you and me in George Groeneveld's vision of the future cattle industry.

[grassfarmer]

I think you are really out to lunch on this one f_s, I don't think you can fault the caliber of the staff the minister has recruited to help achieve his goal of raising Alberta beef exports to a new level on the world stage.
If you read the bio's you posted the link to there is one member who has helped guide his small family food company to a global player in the food industry. Another helped establish Maple Leaf foods as Canada’s largest food exporter by growing market shares in more than 80 countries.
Another has extensive experience marketing and trading meat nationally and internationally with one of Japan’s largest meat processing and supply companies. On top of that there is someone experienced in advertising that has developed many national and international brands.
Kucharski himself has been extensively involved in international business and has lived in Japan.
There is a senior trade policy advisor with international experience and this is rounded out by some real cattle experience in the form of Kee Jim, Charlie Gracey and the Copithorne lady whose experience with CL ranches both in Alberta and internationally will be an asset.

All I can say when I see this board is wow - look at the potential.

But I guess you'd rather stick with the same old, same old f_s? - ABP - a bunch of Alberta cowboys (some of whom have never been out of the province, most who have no business experience other than running their ranches) CCA - the federal equivilent of the ABP with much the same strengths(?) and weaknesses and CBEF - an organisation largely funded by producers but run by packers (and we are continually surprised that they come back empty handed from trade negotiations with offshore countries - could it be that their mandate is in fact to keep Canadian beef captive on this continent?)
I think the collective wisdom of ABP is highlighted by the fact they actively support packer ownership of cattle - the key element of the captive supply situation - enough said!

[farmers_son]

You have included quite a few issues in your post. If you had your way cow calf producers would not be able to sell their weaned calves to the highest bidder; if that bidder was a packing plant…assuming such a law would be enforceable which it clearly would not be. Just another stupid law that would not work. It is not too far of a stretch to think that within a few years ALMA will be telling us who we can sell our calves to anyway, everything else is mandatory. Why not that?

And on the topic of stupid….we have only to look at the Big 3 automakers to see that putting people in charge who do not understand the industry is a recipe for disaster. Ford CEO Alan Mulally came to Ford from Boeing. He may have understood planes but clearly did not understand the auto industry. Business is starting to appreciate that success in one industry will not necessarily translate to success in another industry. That Mr. Makowecki could sell perogies does not mean that he understands the beef business or that he has the best interest of producers like you and me at heart. Ted Bilyea may have been President of Maple Leaf Foods International but I question if he has any sympathy for the men and women actually raising the cattle.

I did not fault the caliber of the people on the ALMA Board. I merely said I do not believe they have the producers best interest at heart and I stand by that statement.

No one should expect the Blue Ribbon panel on the ALMA Board to set any other direction for the cattle/beef industry than one that is mega business made up of vertically integrated value chains that exclude small and medium producer ownership resulting in fewer farmers and ranchers like you and me.

[grassfarmer]

I have no problem with farmers selling their calves to the highest bidder but selling calves direct to a packer is in effect selling to the lowest bidder every time because it reduces the price of every calf in the country each time it happens. Only the "ABP thinkers" can't see the logic in forcing the packers to bid competitively against each other for every fat animal they need.

You think the expertise the board members have won't help us because they don't have our interests at heart? - that rather depends what their mandate is. I believe they have been appointed to help beef producers in this province by developing a more efficient and structured industry with a clear objective in mind backed by the best research, development and marketing expertise available. They are hired people, paid well to do a job and they will be accountable for their performance and the response of the industry to the new initiatives.

You boldly predict the failure of this new agency yet refuse to acknowledge that what has been tried already through the policies proposed and backed by ABP,CCA and CBEF have certainly failed miserably, in fact it has been an unmitigated disaster - they have handed all the benefits to a small handful of processors and retailers and all the pain and destitution to the beef producers of this province. And you advocate more of the same??

[smcgrath76]

I have a lot of respect for any of the board members I know or have met. I am sure that ALMA is with us whether we like it or not at this point. I am currently concerned that no one is talking about the heavy lifting that needs to be done to save ourselves. The government can talk the good talk, but the reality is that if producers want producer owned plants they need to do it themselves. If producers want to export around the world (short of negotiating trade deals) they need to do it themselves. Government can facilitate some of these things through legislation (or reducing barriers and costs) and I strongly believe ALMA fails to do that, but it also does not require anything that a producer can't do now if they so desire. I can't see the benefit of making everyone do it because we think they should. Does the guy who sells weaned calves at a presort sale on the third week of October benefit from carcass data, age verification, location tracking, etc? Not bloody likely. but the flip side of that is "so what?". If that producer wants to do business in that manner that is fine, they are not neccessarily someone I want on my team developing and supplying a specific niche or export market.
Making people do something they don't want to do is generally always counterproductive. By failing to encourage producers but rather forcing them to partake you create a culture of resentment and mistrust, not what you need to grow value chains. I am concerned because there is no talk of the work required by producers to capture value from the ALMA "have to's".
I know ALMA will create change, but what the end result will be I am not sure. I know a lot of older neighbours are quitting due to ALMA and other factors, and that may not be all bad, but it may not be all good either.

[smcgrath76]

Forgot to mention...
Other than trying to figure out how to get some cash out of the program, I am to the point where I could care less about ALMA. We have a plan and will seek out interested people to work with us and by the time ALMA catches up, we will be 5 years further ahead. ALMA will be just a cost of doing business. For those unwilling to do any lifting, ALMA will have to be counterproductive/antiprofit at best.

[farmers_son]

I am actually of two minds about ALMA. One is that ALMA will die like all the other agencies the province has started to give the impression that Government is doing something without actually doing anything. Given that a province can really do very little in the areas that ALMA purports it is going to influence that is probably the most likely outcome. For sure ALMA is a bigger show than we have seen before but it is still a show.

The other side of the coin and what concerns me most is that ALMA might change the industry and I am very concerned about the direction that change might take and if these are the people we want to have changing our industry. Some might profit from those changes but it will not be the men and women on the land.

The Alberta Government has historically been very good to its friends even if it hurts a lot of ordinary Albertans. For instance energy deregulation and the Southerns. Fortunes have been made.

We stand to be forced into value chains where ordinary producers bear all the cost but the rewards accrue to big players further up the value chain with no benefits making it down to the producer level.

But the more likely scenario is that ALMA is a big show with the real purpose of deflecting attention away from Government inaction while we are losing cows and producers daily. Even the most optimistic ALMA supporter would have to agree that by the time ALMA could effect any change in the industry all the damage will have been done. And George can say the reason producers exited the industry is because they could not adapt to the ALMA strategy not because government fiddled while Rome burned.

Just a note about George Groeneveld. His claim to fame was being regional director of Alberta Wheat Pool then first vice president of Agricore United. AWP was one of the largest and most powerful corporations in this province and this country. And where are they now? Gone. Cattle producers should be aware that our industry can be led into decline and forced to sell out to mega interests just as the Pool was. George has participated in the decline of industry giants before and he could do it again. And we need to be concerned about that.

[grassfarmer]

Sean, Yes certainly there is a need for "heavy lifting" on the part of producers and Government. As you say if producers want producer owned plants and to export around the world they need to do it themselves. I think there is potential with ALMA however to create an atmosphere where they may just succeed rather than wither and die like previous efforts. This is a weakness of the "Balzac incubator" proposal - it may work well to get a company up and running with low cost access to kill space but what good does that do in the long run? As soon as you switch off this life support and the company heads out into the real world dominated by Cargill and XL it's game over - just like it was for Ranchers. This is a classic case of treating symptoms rather than the root cause.

Like you we have our own business plan that will take us ahead regardless. I think ALMA is an attempt to help the average price the average producer receives, I'm not so sure it is targeted at only those who are prepared to accept radical change.

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son, You run down the program and you run down the minister but what are your solutions?
All the things you paint as the potential negative scenario of ALMA are here already - producers leaving the land every day, processors getting rich off our backs. ALMA is an attempt to tackle these things. If anyone is fiddling while Rome burns it is you and your friends in ABP/CCA our supposed industry leaders. This has been happening for years and you have not only failed to come up with solutions you fail to acknowledge there are problems. In fact instead of fiddling while Rome burns it seems you are happy pouring more gas on the fire - helping the packers by supporting their packer ownership and captive supply policies and limiting our exporting potential by opposing BSE testing to name but two.
You accuse the Minister of fiddling while Rome burns yet don't comment on the ABP agreeing to spend time and(producer) money lobbying for increased high speed internet access in rural Alberta?
I stand by what I said months ago - if anyone is running a deflection campaign at the moment it's ABP/CCA - against ALMA to detract attention from the fact they themselves have no ideas and no solutions.

[farmers_son]

What are my solutions?

I would get rid of George Groeneveld. This was Mr. Groeneveld’s first cabinet portfolio and he has proven he is not up to the task. Whether you are in favour of ALMA or have concerns as I do the fact remains Groeneveld clearly demonstrated he was not cabinet material when he made the infamous "exit the industry statement" but beyond that when he lied to producers that the AFRP payments would not be tied to CAIS when it was.

George Groeneveld needs to be removed from cabinet, given a seat on a back bench with chalk and blackboard and made to write "I will not tell producers to exit the industry” one thousand times.

If I was in charge of Alberta Agriculture, I would be down in the U.S. with the entire cabinet plus the premier, coming home through Ottawa, lobbying for relief from COOL.

Alberta may have no real ability to influence beef trade with Asia but Alberta should have clout with the U.S. I believe several major pipelines are in the works to carry oil and gas to the United States. Why is Alberta and for that matter Ottawa approving these projects when a major industry like cattle is being hammered by U.S. protectionism? Maybe we can’t turn off the taps but we do not have to keep putting in more plumbing.

Why isn’t Alberta lobbying Ottawa for solutions for the crisis we are in? I think Alberta has isolated itself from the rest of Canada through ALMA. Alberta has lost all its support through its go it alone policy. The rest of the country is showing Alberta that if Alberta wants to go it alone, let them. Only it is the men and women on the Alberta farms that pay the price while from his lofty perch George G. watches the provinces cattle producers exit the industry.

Grassfarmer…you never responded to my comment that “Even the most optimistic ALMA supporter would have to agree that by the time ALMA could effect any change in the industry all the damage will have been done."

ALMA is not leadership, it is doing nothing while the industry collapses. We have an immediate problem that needs immediate solutions yet the government is turning a blind eye.

The oil companyies just this month received a major subsidy from the Alberta government. My goodness. After years of record profits and two months of lower prices they get a cash injection. The cattle guy is told to exit the industry.

Oh, I forgot. I should be getting a tiny cheque from the AFRP program in the New Year. What a joke.

[grassfarmer]

Ah so your solutions are to fire the Ag minister, appoint a new one and send him to bully the biggest bully in the world into dropping COOL? But is that really the extent of our problems?
In any case why slate the AB government for failing to lobby? your ABP has a $12 million budget to spend lobbying in the US and Ottawa - how's that going for us?
I didn't respond to your comment that
"Even the most optimistic ALMA supporter would have to agree that by the time ALMA could effect any change in the industry all the damage will have been done." I guess my response would be it depends what you define as "all the damage" - damage from what? COOL?, BSE?, High dollar? If you read the NFU document released recently (which I note you have totally avoided mentioning or commenting on)you would understand that our problems are much deeper and much longer running - try going back to 1989.
You say "ALMA is not leadership, it is doing nothing while the industry collapses. We have an immediate problem that needs immediate solutions yet the government is turning a blind eye." I would suggest that is rather like the ABP busying itself with lobbying for high speed internet in rural Alberta given all that is going on currently.

Still I suppose you are right, we could always resort to the begging bowl again - it's served us well in the past when politicians and industry leaders totally fail to diagnose the problem properly.

[kato]

Talk about failing to diagnose a problem! Where the &*^^% is the Federal Government in all this??? Programs like this are not provincial responsibilities. They are federal. And the feds are dropping the ball.

Or does our Federal government think that since it's boss is from Alberta, then Alberta means the whole country when it comes to the cattle business?

Letting one province go it alone with programs that will probably just distort things even more is gross negligence in my opinion. Whether it's a good program or not, and whether it helps Alberta producers or not, the fact is that Ottawa has let things deteriorate to the point where provinces are having to step in and do something themselves. This is not right, and it's obvious Ottawa just doesn't care about the rest of us.

If anyone wants to know how things like what happened in Parliament a couple of weeks ago get started, this is just one of a whole number of ways the Tories have brought it on themselves. We get lip service, and a token trade investigation that's going to take so long there won't be anyone left to see it out. And even it didn't happen until power threatened to slip from Mr. H's grasp.

I heard from a guy in the know last week that between the insiders in Manitoba the general opinion is that 25% of our cattle are gone. GONE. They aren't coming back either. And no one cares. We don't have a provincial government that will even come close to doing what Alberta has done already. They're even worse than the Feds when it comes to support for the cattle producers of this province.

So whatever problems you guys have with this program, take heart in the fact that at least you have a program. We on the other hand, have been thrown to the wolves.

[grassfarmer]

I feel for you folks out in Manitoba, or in BC as I know it must be tougher still where you are.

As to federal involvement I've really come to believe that the Feds are already involved more than we realise - only they are working for the other side. I never really believed that a few officials within CFIA had a personal agenda to stop exports or prevent new packing plants meeting approval etc. What would their motive be? as Federal employees they would be well paid so why stick their neck out unless they were either getting backhanders from the established big packers or that their unofficial mandate from the Federal Government was to keep Canadian beef captive on the north American continent. Am I crazy for thinking this? I'll let you be the judge.
Given the way the Federal Ag department right up to the PM's level have acted over the CWB fiasco I wouldn't put anything past them. Plus the fact that Ritz has already proven he supports Cargill and Tyson when he cast the deciding vote back in '04 that let them off the hook instead of being fined $250,000 each, per day until they opened their books to the Commons Ag committee investigating alleged packer profiteering.

[Kathy]

Perhaps we should all go into the mini-refrigerator manufacturing business, as all that meat which ALMS is going to allow us to sell into Asia - will need to be protected from spoiling.

There is an article in "Acres USA" magazine, June 2008 issue, which I just saw and found fascinating.

The article is called "The Road to Serfdom" by Charles Walters and it includes a transcript of a speech given by John Carter from the Australian Beef Association (ABA).

John states that Australia has had premise ID since 1980. He goes on to state that the system is in shambles and the database is "garbage in - garbage out"....


John C. also stated that Australian producers were receiveing about 60% the value for their cattle, as compared to the Americans.

Perhaps I'll post the whole article, if I get some time. I highly recommend this magazine to you all. Their concerns are reflective of many producers - no matter what country you are from.

Here is a link to the Australian Beef Association. Brad Bellinger is their top guy, right now, and here is his bio. There are bios for all their directors. I note that Linda Hewitt - is mentioned in John Carter's comments in Acres. He states that the Hewitts run 15,000 head of cattle. When their stations was flooded out by the rains, and cattle were scattered helter-skelter, the good old "firebrand" was used to sort out the cattle. Then the veterinarians and bureacrats stepped in and told the owners that before they could take their cattle back home, they would be have to be RFID tagged with a special tag, to show that there was no continuity in their "ownership"/"history". This special tag, would then allow the packers to discount those cattle - according to John.

Australians were told they had to implement an animal ID program because the USA was going to and the USA would take away their markets.... Perhaps there are some past shows from the Derry Brownfield radio program with these guys on, which can be downloaded from their archives?

Brad Bellinger, ASA director, (according to Derry Brownfield), has expressed deep concern over the Australian government's plans to bring to their isolated continent, research on Foot and Mouth and other diseases which Australia does NOT suffer from. They are concerned the disease(s) will be released into their herds, just as it was in the UK - from the labs manufacturing vaccines, and doing research on these diseases.

This mirrors the concerns of American producers who are faced with the move of the 'isolated' Plumb Island research facilities for infectious animal diseases to Manhattan, Kansas (which happens to be the geographical center of the USA).

http://www.austbeef.com.au/Content.asp?regID=15403&id=73371

Quote:
DIRECTOR PROFILES

Brad Bellinger (Chairman): Oxley

Brad Bellinger grew up on his Family's mixed grazing farm in Tasmania. He jackarooed at Forbes, before attending Marcus Oldham Agricultural College, graduating in 1987. He returned to the family property, taking on a joint management role, until purchasing his own property in northern Victoria in 1994. Here, he was involved with grain production, fat lambs, wool, and cattle trading. In 2001 he sold that property purchased a grazing property called Trevanna near Glen Innes in northern New South Wales. Trevanna runs 5000 sheep and 500 head of cattle.
In Tasmania, he was involved in the Wool Floor price debates and was also involved in a successful campaign against the introduction of Land Tax on rural property. Eventually the tax was dropped. He has been continually dismayed at the increasing erosion of farmers' rights over the past 20 years and although he participated in the farmer protests of 1985, which saw the formation of the NFF and associated state farming organisations, he has been disappointed in the effectiveness of these groups. He feels the mandatory introduction of NLIS is the final straw in a long list of government lead infringements on his right to farm and the ability to run to run his enterprises in a manner, which he sees, fit.
In 2004, he conducted 2 polls in order to gauge the feelings of producers on mandatory NLIS. One poll was undertaken at the Inverell saleyards, where 88 people voted, 87 against NLIS and only 1 in favour. The second poll was conducted through the Land Newspaper, where 1877 voted against NLIS and 22 in favour. He took these results to the Minister for Agriculture in NSW, Ian McDonald, who ignored them. The Minister is completely oblivious to the democratic process, which Brad believes should be the policy driver for new legislation placed upon farmers.
In November 2004, he was appointed as Vice Chairman of the Australian Beef Association. In this position, he will endeavour to campaign against legislation, which infringes upon his right to farm and the manner in which he raises and sells his livestock.


John Carters article in Acres, also mentioned a poll that was done by other parties, it turned out this poll was hacked by members of the Meat and Livestock Association - and the numbers which were very much "against" mandatory animal identification, were switched around to show a favourable response. The hackers were caught, but not punished.