Big Farms

[grassfarmer]

No fs it's not me that is twisting things around its you. I was merely pointing out the contradiction that appears all the time when you back ABP and yet claim your personal beliefs are more or less exactly the opposite.
You claim to back the cow/calf producer, small operations against giant, producer plants against the big packers yet as I said before ABP policies favor the opposite.

ABP actively supports captive supply, a practice which lowers live cattle prices for all producers.
ABP supported the bailouts the big packers got after BSE.
ABP promotes giantism through their campaign to increase the CAIS payment caps.
ABP campaigns for an end to supply management which delivers viability to family sized dairy operations.

[coppertop]

In the grand scheme of things, the most
important thing we need now is RAIN, and I
doubt if either ABP or Premier Ed can do
much about that !!!
We got a nice little shower this morning,
not enough but hopefully we will get more
over the next few days.

[farmers_son]

Actually Grassfarmer, that is a gross misrepresentation of ABP. And Coppertop is right, what we need is rain. We would all feel better.

Still think there needs to be more awareness that the mega factory farm concept is not the way for agriculture to go. What would happen to agriculture if it is all in the hands of a handful of enterprises and they start to go bankrupt like the hog farm in the first item in this thread. It will be GM and Chrysler all over again. Government is going to own most of GM. If agriculture goes big (and it is on its way to being there) Government will end up owning agriculture too.

What a minute...government already owns the biggest hog farm in Saskatchewan. Go figure....

[grassfarmer]

Why is it a gross misrepresentation fs? Please tell me which of the points I quoted aren't true.
1 ABP actively supports captive supply.
2 ABP supported the bailouts the big packers got after BSE.
3 ABP campaigned to increase the CAIS payment caps to $3 million.
4 ABP wants an end to supply management.

As for Kevin Boone I would disagree with you there Coppertop - with his pinstripe suits, spotless new cowboy hat and working off farm he doesn't impress many of my friends in this zone with his ability to represent us. He does a great job for the packers though arguing as he does for captive supply, no BSE testing etc etc.

[coppertop]

grassfarmer I live about fifteen minutes
from Kevin Boon. If all you see when you
think of him is pinstripe suits then you
don't know the man at all. He does not
have a large cattle operation and his
off farm job as you call it is in the
cattle industry. Sometimes I think we
only hear what we want to hear both on
this site and in person. I think it is
difficult for any organization to
represent the cattle industry when that
industry can't agree on what the issues
are and how they should be solved. All
one has to do is look at the posts on
this site and it is easy to see why
governments think they need to regulate
us, because we don't know what is good
for us !!!!

[grassfarmer]

I'm not following the logic of your last post Coppertop.

"All one has to do is look at the posts on this site and it is easy to see why
governments think they need to regulate us, because we don't know what is good
for us !!!!"

What do you mean by that? that there is only one opinion on these posts that is right and that if others disagree with it they deserve to be regulated by Government?

[coppertop]

grassfarmer don't always get your shorts
in a knot. I merely said there are
strong opinions voiced on both sides of
many issues, so obviously the livestock
industry does not speak with one voice.
The livestock industry isn't on the same
page when it comes to speaking to
government, hence, the government feels
they need to regulate the industry
because, obviously if we don't agree on
a common position, they know best !!
Just my opinion of why we are seeing so
much top down legislation coming at us.

[Sawbones]

Coppertop..that's probably the best argument that I've heard on this post to support refundable check-off so producers have a choice. Exactly the basis of the formation of the Beef Industry Alliance. If you agree with the policies of Kevin Boone and ABP, then keep your check-off dollars in place and support them. If you want a packing plant that will allow custom slaughter for value chains or one that will develop EU markets, then allow those producers the opportunity to direct their check-off.

[coppertop]

Sawbones, I don't think that the
refundable checkoff is necessarily going
to be redirected, producers can request
it be refunded and use it to go to
Mexico if they want, they don't have to
redirect it to market our livestock.
I don't know all the answers but I feel
that a plebicite would have clearly
shown the desire of the cattle industry.
That is my issue with Bill 43. Let the
people in the industry decide if they
want a mandatory check-off or
refundable. I would hope you agree that
producers who are earning a living in
the livestock industry are better
equipped to make a decision on what is
best for the industry, than 73 MLA's who
are mainly from urban centers and have
never owned a cow, much less know what
issues the industry faces.

[smcgrath76]

Relative to the topic, I think that size
does matter. One of the best ways to
protect yourself is to employ enough
people that government won't let you
fail (aka GM). I don't know any farms
in that league at present though (a few
processors maybe).
I think that I support refundable
checkoff, however I also think producers
should have been the ones to decide.
One of my issues with refundable
checkoff though is that people may
request the refund yet still reap the
benefits. A simple example could be a
producer direct marketing, who gets a
checkoff refund and uses BIC materials
in their promotions.
The greyness is that equal is not fair
and refundable is not fair.