ALMA directors named

[kato]

Just spotted this on the Manitoba Co-operators newspaper website.

Alberta's ALMA names advisory committees
Staff
ic
Livestock View!


The Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency has tapped into the province's livestock and meat production talent pool for advisory committees to guide the agency's work.

"When I announced the strategy and the creation of ALMA, I promised that industry would remain the driver," provincial Agriculture Minister George Groeneveld said Wednesday in announcing the new committees.

"The advisory committee members possess a great deal of knowledge and will help ensure the success of our livestock and meat industry."

The five new committees are: cattle producers, beef processors, the pork value chain, the diversified livestock sector and "innovation and further value-added."

Committee members hail from all sectors of the province's livestock and meat processing industries and include notables such as Canadian Pork Council president Jurgen Preugschas and Grainews columnist and rancher Christoph Weder.

ALMA, set up by the province starting in June last year, is intended to align and redirect government funds, resources and programs to "revitalize" the province's livestock sector and help boost industry competitiveness and profitability, with market access among its priorities.

The new advisory committees are expected to "provide advice on issues facing industry, support the implementation of the Alberta Livestock and Meat Strategy and provide a forum for industry representatives to share information, while working within a positive and co-operative atmosphere."

"The insight and experience of these respected committee members will enable us to develop and implement many important initiatives that will help create a more vibrant future for our industry," ALMA board chairman Joe Makowecki said in the province's release Wednesday.

ALMA ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Cattle producers

* Bill Newton, Alberta Livestock Industry Development Fund
* Bill Feenstra, Alberta Milk
* Clay Gellhaus, Alberta Veterinarian Medical Association
* Dave Plett, producer at large
* Gary Smith, Alta Exports International
* Herb Groenenboom, Alberta Cattle Feeders Association
* Jennifer Stewart-Smith, producer at large
* Leighton Kolk, producer at large
* Reg Schmidt, Feeders Association of Alberta
* Rick Burton, Alberta Beef Producers
* Russel Pickett, Western Stock Growers Association

Beef processors

* Brian Nilsson, Nilsson Bros. Inc.
* Geoff Smolkin, West Coast Reduction Ltd.
* Ray Price, Sunterra Meats
* Scott Entz, Cargill

Pork value chain

* Ben Woolley, Alberta Pork
* Bryan Perkins, producer at large
* Dan Majeau, Sturgeon Valley Pork
* Don Brookbank, Olymel
* Glenn Van Dijken, Western Hog Exchange
* Herb Holoboff, Alberta Pork
* Jurgen Preugschas, producer at large
* Mark Wipf, Alberta Pork
* Ray Price, Sunterra (Trochu)
* Trevor Sears, Maple Leaf

Diversified livestock

* Doug Milligan, producer at large
* Florence Henning, Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission
* Glenda Elkow, Alberta Elk Commission
* Len Shandruk, Diversifed Livestock Fund of Alberta
* Miles Kliner, Sunterra (Innisfail)
* Myrna Coombs, Goat Breeders Association
* Tom Olson, Bison Producers of Alberta

Innovation and further value-added

* Bruce Smith, VAMP
* Christoph Weder, Prairie Heritage Beef
* Darryl Doell, Alberta Turkey Producers
* Dave Kasko, XL Foods Grinding
* Ed Rodenburg, Lilydale
* Hans Kabat, Sun Valley Foods
* James Ducs, Mountain Top Foods
* Jean Beliveau, Premium Brands
* Jeff Clark, Kitchen Partners
* Karsten Nossack, Nossack Fine Meats
* Kirsten Kotelko, Spring Creek Ranch
* Peter Muhlenfeld, Champion Pet Food
* Scott Weins, Alberta Chicken Producers
* Tony Spiteri, New Food Classics

[perfecho]

Originally I was very much in favor with the age verification and premise idea. Like I have mentioned before, I believed this would lead to better information for the consumer when purchasing their beef products in the store and hence make our beef more valuble. Since the information was so available, they could soon see how old their steaks were, and if they were produced in Alberta or elsewhere.
I am very disappointed that retail labeling is supposedly going to be “consumer driven” (words from the deputy minister), which really means it “ain’t going to happen”! Consumers do not know they have the choice, or even that they are being fed cow meat for much of their beef selections.
What I have a problem with, is we as producers are mandated (better word than “shoved down our throat”) to age verify and yet packers do not have to further this info on. So, why do it? So as packers can make extra margins on export beef, and yet continue to feed us the 10 year old cow meat that can bought for ½ price and sold for regular prices. We can not even get the same level of information in our country as others get in the export markets......do you not find this odd?
This fact alone, states this initiative is for the packers, and packers alone and not for further profit for the producers…..same old pile of ;-), just someone else forking it!
I will now take deep breathes and “Aummmmmm” for a while.

[kato]

Talk about being mandated! We were informed last week when Charile Gracie made a tour of Manitoba that our calves will now be discounted if they are not age and premise verified. And to boot, our closest auction mart (Nillson owned BTW), refuses to have age verified presorts, so all the cattle are discounted, age verified or not. The only way around this for us is to haul farther, sell out of the yard, or sell on a Thursday when the sales are so small that the prices are always poorer.

So we don't get one red cent for our trouble. At least you guys got a bit of a cheque from the Alberta government to take the sting out of it. There is no assistance money for our province's cattle producers, but we have to jump through the same hoops.

[smcgrath76]

One of my largest concerns with the ALMA program has always been how SK and particularly MB guys will get screwed. I think what may happen longer term is that a lot of SK and MB calves will be fed at home and harvested in the US. If your calves are cheaper to buy (discounted) and feed is available this would make sense. A lot of feeders I know in SK and MB sell less than 1% of their calves to processors in AB. This will reduce the supply of feeder calves available to AB feedlots and AB based processors and accelerate changes in the industry (both good and bad?)

[wilagro]

Holly Moley Robin, did you see who is on some of those "advisory committees"?

Many of the crooks who have been fleecing us for years.

We now have a government making policy with some advisors who directly benefit from having "low priced" raw material...namely our farm and ranch raised cattle. The fix is in folks...my advice...get out of the business as fast as you can do it. We now have a bloated government bureaucracy running things. Talk about communism...this is going to be far worse.

Are there any animals that will escape the governments scrutiny and legislative control? If there are I am sure that they will soon be added to the list.

[grassfarmer]

What a lot of negativity! I think the board of ALMA and the advisory committee are very positive news. There are a lot of very able, free thinking people on the board and on these advisory committees who will have a lot to contribute. Sure I'm none too happy about seeing Cargill and Nilsson getting a seat on the advisory committees but another way to look at it was there power may be less than it has been in the past. Under previous AB governments and previous AG ministers it seemed the only people listened to were the packers and their puppets the ABP. Now at least these voices will be mitigated by the counter arguments of the other groups like Western Stockgrowers and folks like Christoph Weder and some smaller processors coming from the value added end of things.
I think this looks better than the alternative which was to do nothing.

I'm sorry it doesn't help people in MB or SK but that isn't really the "fault" of the AB government - politicians have a mandate to help their province not other provinces. A Federal proposal similar to ALMS would have been better and I understood the AB government tried to persuade them to go for that initially to no avail.

[kato]

If anyone is at fault, it's the federal government. Programs like this are not a provincial responsibility due to the fact that they effectively create interprovincial imbalances. The federal government's job is supposed to be to bring in programs that keep the playing field level across the country, not allowing ten little countries to evolve.

The Alberta government stepped in because they've got the money, and because the federal government is not doing it's job.

When producers from Manitoba approached the feds about this they told them to ask the provincial government for money. Ya! Like that's going to happen! The Manitoba government is not the Manitoba government. It's the Winnipeg government. They have a majority, and they got it pretty much without any support from the rest of the province. They have an anti-agriculture approach to things, and quite frankly don't give a rat's ass what happens outside the city.

Every person in the province can vote for other than the NDP, and they still wouldn't change things. I don't think anyone in the government even listens to the Ag minister. The new packing plant that's being built with checkoff money is only being supported by the government because it's in Winnipeg. If it was outside the city it would be shot down just like Rancher's Choice was.

They managed to kill the majority of the hog production, and we're probably next.

There are days when I think they'd just as soon we all went away and quit bothering them so they can turn rural Manitoba into a provincial park and stock it with organic buffalo.

We are screwed yet again. Of that we can be sure. At least in Saskatchewan your provincial government seems to care what happens to you. We are on our own.

End of rant. I'm going to go bake some cookies now and calm down. ;-)

[perfecho]

Some may be negative, but much of it is true………and we need to see the truth in order to deal with it. Please enlighten me to why we, the producers, are virtually mandated to supply birth dates and yet packers have no responsibility to supply such to the consumer.
This process, or lack there of, allows packers to flog older, cheaper cuts to our very own local consumers and yet capitalize on foreign markets with proven younger animals. Unless there is something I am missing,, this is totally in favor of the packers……and yet the program is trumpeted as saving “the producers” industry. The optics of 40 people hired to “help us through the transition” is a pile of money spent helping major packers capture more markets……..and although theoretically that should create more demand and higher prices for us……the truth is business will capture as much of the margin as possible. That’s their job…..that is what they get the huge bonuses for. (And I really don’t blame them, heck that’s what bought my farm).
I truly was for the age verification/premise ID….I believe it is part of the process. But there is a big part of the process missing, and “they” will take advantage of it as long as they can. And I am sure the packing industry had much to say in this process.
I do admire many that are on the ALMS board and I hope some new, positive ideas will emerge, however this fundamental flaw is very one sided and yet is the backbone of the whole program.
In the meantime, a processing plant that is not finished and could be in operation within a year for approximately $10- $30 mil,(pending kill capacity) is in jeopardy of being bought for storage. Now this would be truly constructive and truly would help the industry. Perhaps we could all get on board and push for real change that would benefit the producer’s pocket books. (Will post updates and request help if a few more meetings show any hope for saving this plant for its intended use.)
So please, enlighten me as to why we are mandated to age verify and yet the packers are not, nor will be, required to pass on this information. I have already changed my attitude on the ALMS initiative once, and am open to change it again……given good reason.

[grassfarmer]

Perfecho, Pure and simple ALMS was not designed as COOL for domestic customers it was designed to open doors in parts of Asia that demanded age verified cattle.

I would support COOL in Canada, it's one of the suggested solutions put forward by the NFU too. I think there is potential for COOL based marketing of Canadian cattle around the world too, particularly if we could drop the hormone and cut the anti-biotic use. We will have to build our brand first though and I think that is something ALMA will help do.

Programs like Canada Gold will allow producers a better return on their time spent age verifying - you will get back slaughter information as well as feedlot performance/efficiency data.

As to actually informing domestic consumers of the age/origin of their beef purchases I don't think that's ever really been raised as something we must do. You are right the packers will use this to their advantage. The way to fight that is to bring forward your request that product be age/origin identified at point of sale - ditching the whole ALMA/ALMS program is not the answer.

[Sawbones]

I like the people that were named as beef producers but I would like to point out that except for a vet that resides in Edmonton and a dairy farmer, all producers are from Calgary area or south. 70% of the cattle producrs are north of Red Deer. There must be a couple of them that could have helped

[grassfarmer]

I should add that the current packer monopoly remains the number one problem. Opening export markets in Asia will be for nought as far as producers are concerned unless we can get beef over there without it first going through the Cargill/XL/Tyson plants.
This is the biggest problem ALMA faces and I hope they have the guts to tackle it. With out alternate capacity and competition in the slaughter sector nothing changes.

[Sawbones]

It's good to see that NFU, BIA and ACFA are now advocating packer reform. If ABP want any credibility, they'd better get on board as well

[perfecho]

I have brought this forward and will continue to bring forward labeling of our own domestic cattle. I was told this would be "consumer driven". Right;-)
I am also not asking for a total COOL protocol, only label what is easily identified...the information we as producers are made to supply. The export market is totally controlled by the 2-(3) packers, not producers.
I do agree that the ALMA should not be scrapped, but if producers are meant to be on board, create something that would truly move "our" industry forward. This, to me, smells to much like another program to help the packing industry, not the producer. And when I am told what to do, to strengthen my purchasers position, not mine, I do and will get defensive!
Time to check calves…..gotta love this weather!!!!!!

[gwfl]

ALMA APPOINTEES. My first impression was, when I first saw the article on the new appointees… that we may be heading down the same old path we have been going for the past six years. I have nothing against the list of people on the list, because I am sure they are all dedicated and qualified to represent their particular segment of the industry. It looked very much like the list of those that through various organizations “represent us already”. Maybe it is not the intention of this advisory group to represent anyone, I don’t know. Every little group that has a following of 20 people wants to have a seat at the table and the results so far have been “going nowhere”. It may be that this group will be able to achieve a consensus of what to do. It is extremely difficult to achieve one (a consensus) with such large number of advisors. The Alberta government has put millions of dollars into the establishment of ALMA and to a lesser degree, Canada Gold. I was elated when I first read about CG and of course attended their first meeting. I was of the impression that as cattle moved up the chain and ended with the packer, that the arrangement (with the packer) would be on a contract basis, and that CG would participate in the marketing of our beef. When I began asking questions about who would own, and of course finance the beef, I was advised that the packer would. I put my cheque book back in my pocket.

In all likelihood, all or the majority of cattle going to the feedlots and packers will be age verified in the very near future, so I have to question the purpose of Canada Gold if they are not going to retain ownership of the beef. It is probably very interesting to receive all the performance data as the cattle move up the chain, but what is it worth? It is worth far more if it is accurate and worth nothing of it is not. I could be wrong, and maybe I should keep my cheque ready. If the packers own the Canada Gold beef, I cannot understand why they would voluntarily share their profits with producers.

I think we are missing a key argument in the packer ownership of market ready cattle. It is probably true that they can manipulate the prices by having a captive supply of market ready cattle, and there is little we can do about it. The industry has to have packers in whatever form they come. They are in business just like everyone else, to make a profit. When the profits begin to disappear, they will be gone. Whether they are replaced by someone else, we will have to wait and see. The packers and the feedlots are having a pretty good year, and it could be said that it is on the backs of the cow-calf producers. Profit is an essential ingredient of any business and it is arrived at by selling ones product (in this case beef) for more than it costs, or in the case of the packer, buying the inputs (fat cattle) for less. It has nothing to do with the prices being fair or not. The fairness of the price will determine the number of cows that are kept in production, and with the depletion of the nation’s cow herd, one has to conclude that the price has not been fair for quite a few years. From what I have read, there are markets for our finished beef that are not based on or limited to the U.S. price, and offer opportunities that we will have to capitalize on to survive. Under the present system of marketing beef, there is no assurance that any opportunity premiums will be passed back through the marketing chain. This is why it is imperative that producers must become participants in the packing business.

I have often wondered where all the cow beef is going. The cow herds are disappearing in both Canada and the US and Canadian cows are not being exported, so look to a local grocery store near you. I have noticed lately the beef in the local IGA (Sobey) is labeled “AA or better”. In anticipation of a pending fishing trip last fall, I ordered a strip loin from the local IGA store and took it with us, it was $73; the label had no other identification. I was later told that IGA do not have AAA beef available to them. While in Victoria, we decided to buy another so we went to a Thrifty store and purchase a strip loin that was labeled AAA, aged 21 days with dates on the label and so on, Prairie Heritage Beef was on the label and the price was $134. I purposely chose the loin with Prairie Heritage on the label, (although there were others to choose from) because of curiosity and because we had thought seriously about trying to market through them at one time.

There is no question where a lot of the cow beef is going and until a lot more cows disappear, it may be difficult to get better value from the domestic market for the higher end of our finished beef.

How old can a cow be and still grade AA?

[Sawbones]

Good points gwfl
Less than 1/2 of OTM is graded and a lot of it is sold to the food service industry where it doesn't necessarily have to carry the grade. This can be shipped to the US without a problem once its in a box. Canadian packers are using our cattle to back-fill their orders and avoid paying us the same rate as they are paying for similar US cattle. Canada Gold will have a hard time getting cattle custom killed unless the slaughter rates go up substantially. Prairie Heritage rates have been steadily increasing. Keep your cheque book handy. There may be an opportunity to invest but this time producers must be smarter and protect their investment so that no matter who operates the plant, their intial investment of the plant is protected and the plant is always there to kill cattle. Buy the plant but lease it to potential packer partners. If they aren't fair...terminate their lease!!!