NFU

[silverback]

I am curious as to how the objectives of the NFU can fit the future of this cattle industry.

The main goal of the NFU from what I read is to bring us to a supply managed beef supply. Is this true?

If it is, then logic would say that we will have to forget about the world export markets. The feather and dairy industries in Canada do not export very much product, but depend on limiting supply to canadians to keep prices attractive to the farmgate.

I then have to ask how many cows (beef and dairy) do we need in total to supply Canada's beef needs?

At what price point of beef do consumers stop buying?

Do you believe consumers will pay more?

We pay more for supply managed products than they do for the same products in the US. Will beef go up also?

What value do you assign to the quota for young farmers wanting to enter the business?

How long do you suppose it will take for these massive 4th and 5th generation ranches to buy out the quota of the smaller farmers who don't have the land base or history?

You must also impose protectionist tariffs to limit imports of offshore beef which will probably have those countries impose tariffs on our products. Is that smart policy?

Just looking for straight answers.

[grassfarmer]

Straight answers.
"The main goal of the NFU from what I read is to bring us to a supply managed beef supply. Is this true?" - No it's not true. You can read the report for yourself at www.nfu.ca.

If you do read the report it would answer many of your further queries. Consumers do not have to pay more for beef to raise producers incomes - that is just plain wrong. Consumers are paying only slightly less than they were 20-30 years ago for their beef whereas beef producers returns have halved. There is a problem but it was not created by consumers not paying enough for beef - it was created by corporate concentration in the retailing and processing sectors eliminating competition and then reducing the price they pay for their raw materials (live cattle or beef)

"We pay more for supply managed products than they do for the same products in the US. Will beef go up also?" - Another false charge. There have been reports showing this to be true and reports showing it to be false but on balance most reports show that over time Canadian consumers pay less for milk than US producers do.

[silverback]

Ok, I just read page 24 and it talks about ways of starting a collective marketing agency. It says a "top priority" is to create orderly, collective marketing agencies. The goal is to get higher prices with collective selling and equitable access for smaller sellers. It also talks about a "single desk exporting agency".

I also read on the page about the nfu where they state that the nfu and their members work to create, expand, and safeguard orderly marketing and supply management systems.

So I assume you are saying that you do not want supply management for the beef industry but you do want a single desk pricing agency?

Please explain how this would work for us.

[kato]

I went to one of the meetings yesterday, and what I heard was that single desk is only one of a number of possible solutions. What I took away from the meeting was that corporate concentration was a much more urgent issue that needed addressing. I'm thinking that if there was a way to get some control back regarding packer owned cattle and such, it could very well be that a marketing board would not be needed.

I was quite impressed with the meeting. I was impressed with how they presented the facts, and rather than try and get everyone to abandon current organizations to join up, they urged people to try and work within the existing cattle organizations to change their directions. I know Randy tried it in the ABP and didn't have a lot of fun, but not all the cattle groups are as big and unwieldy as the ABP, and there might be more success with them.

They had some interesting news that the new Obama administration was concerned with the packer concentration in the U.S. That was encouraging. It also indicates that we've got to get moving up here if the corporations in the U.S. actually do get their knuckles slapped.

Imagine a scenario where Cargill in the U.S. is not allowed to own it's own cattle, but it IS allowed to own them here? What a nightmare that would be. They would quickly buy up every hook in the country and then use the entire Canadian cattle industry to help smooth out the markets to their favour. How long would a stunt like that go on before we'd be seeing borders closed? Not very long, I would think.

I don't think we should be distracted into a marketing board argument, when this other issue has not been addressed yet. If the XL deal goes through in it's complete form, we'll be in a situation that will be a lot more difficult to deal with after the fact. Competition will not exist in this country at all any more, and it will be very very hard to undo the damage.

[grassfarmer]

Very well put Kato, and I'm glad you enjoyed the NFU presentation yesterday.

Silverback as Kato says the NFU document suggests possible solutions to be considered by those of us in the industry so as many as possible were included.
What we need are all producers to get involved and bring forth their suggestions. So instead of looking for ways to discredit the document because you are a CWB hater and resent the NFU for the success they have had in preserving that institution maybe you could provide some of your own suggested solutions for Agrivillers to read.

[silverback]

Jeeze you get your panties in a knot in a big hurry gf.

It is no secret that I feel our farm has never seen any benefit from the cwb

I am looking for the answers to my questions right now and that's it.

I put up a lot of questions above that I wait patiently for answers to.

How do we get to packers owned by producers?

Does the NFU propose that alongside a single desk marketing agency to price beef that we also run a single desk/government run packing industry?

I would also like to know who/how many of the very influential people in this Canadian beef industry are in favor of the nfu proposals. There are some very smart business people in this industry, and if they will get behind it I think others would also.

[grassfarmer]

Maybe because we've covered the same ground in the past silverback and I know where you are going with this.

However much you like to put that spin on it the NFU document is not about supply management or a Government running packing sector. If you think it is you need to re-read the document.

You want me to list who and how many of the "very influential people" are in favor of the NFU proposals. That rather depends who you deem to be the influential and smart people in our cattle industry. Perhaps you want to supply me with a list of those first?
It sounds rather like the herd mentality where you wait for a few "leaders" to voice their support for a concept before all the sheep join the ranks.

I'm proud to say that the NFU is not like that - it is made up of members who are able to think and speak for themselves. Their input allows the organization to come up with factual and hard hitting documents like this one on the cattle sector crisis. It also allows us to see through the bogus ideology that the "free market" will solve all our problems.

[silverback]

Can you not simply answer my frickin questions please!

They are not that tough.

If you want regular Joe Blow small cowboy like us to support your nfu's plans I would hope you could simply answer some very basic questions about what you want to accomplish.

The madder you get at me is only going to have people question the validity of your organization and where you hope to lead this industry.

All I want for me and anybody else is the Coles Notes version of what you guys are trying to do.

Is that so hard?

I might like what you've got, you never know.

This is the internet age gf and some of us don't want to spend that much time reading a bunch of propaganda or doublespeak. We want simple, boiled down answers so we can make up our minds whether to get involved more.

Simple.

Is your plan to make this a voluntary system or will all producers be mandated to comply?

From what futures market will the price of our calves be determined and will it be set monthly, weekly, or daily?

Who will decide what is a fair price that day/week/month?

If I start our own consumer direct marketing program right now will I have to accept the pricing mandate of the nfu and charge only that amount? If I collect more will I need to submit that to somebody somewhere?

If I want to ship overseas do I need special permission to do that? How will that work for our farm?

Are you striving for supplying Canada only or export markets also?

Thanks for your response.

[Sawbones]

GF..thanks for your letter to BIA.. It's important that all segments of the industry start working together and put their differences aside and park their egos at the door. We all know that there has to be changes to the staus quo. Too many producers are showing their dissatisfaction by liquidating their cowherd. Silverback is looking for a direct answer and I think the short version is that there is tremendous potential in Alberta if we as primary producers work together. We can no longer expect to ship to the current packers and expect a profit margin as they are able to control the price and the easiest way for them to guarantee a profit is to limit the amount they pay for the product. There is ample grass and feed and we have the capability of exporting far more than we can consume.

[grassfarmer]

Silverback,
You say "...some of us don't want to spend that much time reading a bunch of propaganda or doublespeak." I suggest you take the time to read the NFU document - it is clear, concise and is neither propaganda or doublespeak. I can send you the full length document if you prefer. Either way you will learn the facts quicker that way than trawling web forums looking for people's opinions on what it may contain.
I refer you to your first question and my response. "The main goal of the NFU from what I read is to bring us to a supply managed beef supply. Is this true?" - No it's not true. This is not what "the plan" is about.

One of the 16 possible solutions to the crisis is titled "build collective marketing agencies" The aims are to
a. achieve higher prices as a result of collective selling power for farmers.
b. equitable access to markets for smaller sellers.
c. equal pay for animals of equal value.
d.protection from packer and feeder power, retribution and /or abuses.
This is followed by the sentence. "Farmers and policymakers will have to work together in good faith to determine exactly what form those collective marketing agencies should take...."
In other words there have been no details worked out on this issue because it is only one of many suggested solutions - this is why we need producer input.

As a personal opinion though how do the 4 aims highlighted above under collective marketing agencies differ from what the NW Consolidated outfit are doing at the moment? I think this is a good example of collective marketing and it has nothing to do with supply management, Government control or any of the other bogeymen you seem so scared of. Perhaps all that is needed on the collective marketing front is to encourage marketing outfits like this in combination with breaking up the captive supply situation?

[smcgrath76]

Further to this GF I would add a couple of points...
I don't like the idea of a single desk for beef (AKA CWB) however there is merit in pooled marketing. Northwest consolidated is doing just that and seeing some real benefits. That is one approach and if a producer wants to sign on it is there perogative and risk.
I am not an NFU supporter, but I did not see a call for government owned plants in the document. The government does need to foster an environment where producer plants can grow and thrive through tax structures, lending, marketing support, trade agreements, streamlining regulations, etc.
How does a producer owned plant get started? Pull out your checkbook. That is pretty much the size of it. I know very few producers who want to own part of a plant, yet they will pay for more land. That is fine, so perhaps another option is developing branded programs and paying for custom slaughter at existing plants. Short of producers stepping up to the plate they won't own a plant. It is like trying to buy a new truck without signing on to make the payments.

[smcgrath76]

forgot to mention. Supply management is offered as one solution. In my personal opinion/feeling/visceral reaction it is one option that I hope never makes the light of day. That said, the other stuff makes some sense to me.

[kato]

Supply management, that is the suggestion that supply management is an option for producers, is also a suggestion that may get some notice from both current large players and current government. This industry is controlled right now by big businesses who use the lack of government interest in what they are doing to their advantage and our disadvantage. They are rolling along in total confidence that we will bow down to the status quo and our government will sit back and let it happen.

Just discussing something like supply management, especially if it starts to seem credible to more than a handful of producers will get the attention of big business. You can bet on that. Producers getting together and presenting a united front is the kind of nightmare that big business did not want in the times of the first unions organizing. It's the last thing they want to see.

And it's a subject that's popping up more and more. I think it's an indication of just how bad things have become for us. We are actually discussing what only a few years ago would have been unthinkable to most. I've heard people suggest it who I never thought in a million years would even give it a thought.

We live in a world of big agribusiness. Giant corporations who have more resources than a lot of countries. How did they get so powerful? By keeping those who produce their primary products divided and scrapping amongst themselves. Any inflationary costs associated with their raw product over many many years have all been absorbed by guess who? US. Their margins have remained intact while we keep sinking deeper and deeper into an impossible situation.

We've hit bottom. There's no where else to go, and whether or not we believe individually in supply management, we need to keep it on the discussion table. The mere fact that we're talking about it is an indicator of our dire straits.

So keep talking....

In the meantime we need to address our problems in as many other ways as we can. Sooner or later we will hit on a solution that works.