COWS

[Fransisco]

How curious grassfarmer, the benefits of lower tariffs worldwide on beef for a Canadian cattleman are obvious yet you regect that outright in defense of supply management.

Why would that be if you are not a supply mangement producer looking to protect the value of his quota?

[Fransisco]

Speaking of not knowing what they are talking about Grassfarmer said ,<blockquote>"One thing that would open export doors for Canadian beef would be if we were to produce more to a hormone free, antibiotic free protocol - at least we know the EU would be a willing importer of such beef." </blockquote>

The EU ban has been ruled illegal a number of times as it is completely without any scientific merit. Their ban is just another artificial trade barrier. Do you really think that trade can be increased by accepting irrational and completely arbitrary rules set up by every country we do business with? You're dreaming in technicolour.

[Fransisco]

And here is something from one of the Canadian Cattlemens Association monthly report.
<blockquote>
<b>Canadian Pork and Beef Processors Seeking Positive Outcome, Reduction of Tariffs at WTO Negotiations</b>

Canada’s pork and beef processors say they’re ready to compete in international markets, and they’re looking to Canada’s negotiators at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to ensure they get the opportunity. <b>Meat is one of the most protected commodities in the world with one of the highest average tariffs.</b> Canadian pork and beef processors want to see a reduction of tariffs across agricultural sectors both within Canada and abroad when countries attempt to reach a WTO agreement in Hong Kong next month.

“Market access is critical for a small plant such as ours,” says Dave Price, Chairman of Sunterra Group, a pork, lamb and beef processor. “The Canadian pork, beef, and processing sectors are competing in international markets and showing that we can succeed, but we need assurance of market access. We’re not looking for special protections, we’re simply asking for a fair market environment in which to compete so that we may grow our business and our contribution to the Canadian economy. We need Canada’s WTO negotiators to be at the table in Hong Kong negotiating hard for tariff reductions.”

Greg Whalley is President of Britco Pork and a Director of the Canadian Meat Council. The Canadian Meat Council represents Canadian federally inspected meat processors. Whalley says while exports are a small percentage of his sales, his company and others like it are dependent on the export market nonetheless. “If the major Canadian pork processors lose access to export markets they will force more of their pork into the domestic market. That means fewer sales for smaller companies like ours, and possibly a loss of domestic processing capacity for Canadian hog producers.”

Whalley adds that he is interested in growing his export business which would allow him to increase hog purchases. He is also looking to Canadian negotiators to help negotiate a WTO agreement that reduces tariffs and secures market access for Canadian products.

In 2004 Canada exported $2.6 Billion worth of pork and $1.9 Billion worth of beef and veal into international markets. Canada exported pork to over 100 countries in 2004 with the top markets being the United States and Japan, followed by Australia, South Korea, Mexico, China, Russian and Taiwan. Canadian beef and veal was exported to over 65 countries in 2004 with top markets being the United States and Mexico followed by Macau, Hong Kong and Philippines. </blockquote>

Your association seems to get it grassfarmer. Why don't you?

[TOM4CWB]

Fransisco,

I think you have missed the point Grassfarmer was making about Beef to the EU.

It does apply to Quebec for certain as well.

I did a little reading about "Libertarian" views... and perhaps have a better understanding of how and why you and others feel the way you do...


What about this?

Is the customer right... if they demand hormone free natural beef... or are GMO haters... and don't want to eat these products... would you force this food upon them? I hope not.

THis is part of choice, and societies make choices... and these folks are allowed to choose what they have chosen.

Same with Organic grains... and the choices consumers have with them!

We all make choices. Sometimes these have "Profit" implications... and we live with those limitations or benefits as well!

The decision of how government serves the people it governs... is a choice of a society. Quebec IS a distinct society within Canada... after listening and trying to understand them... They have made choices, and so have we generally as Canadians.

We chose to work with Quebec... and they chose to stay with Canada and work with us. I believe this was a good choice for both of us... but it certainly makes our minds stretch... and our tolerance pushed towards accepting our neighbour and their priorities in a broader context.

And those folks who live outside Quebec that believe in the governments role... in a EU type context... have a right to do so as well.

A clear signal was sent about the CWB. PEOPLE went to JAIL... to protest the unfair system it is. TO choose to grow a SM5 product... is very different than to grow wheat of barley.

Cows and Pigs have their own challenges and market limitations... the market discipline that is needed to earn a living on the farm... is an important part of the business side we must all accept.

Who was/IS "right"... and who was/is "wrong" is a big debate... and certainly has been my point brought to this discussion. You and Parsley believe SM5 should give up some of the sovereignty and legal rights they treasure... and an obvious objection from them arises. So by force... we will take assets away from them that were legally acquired?

I don't see this as an issue with the CWB in the same way. CWB legal authority under the Constitution was supposed to accept choice decisions of growers that chose not to use the elevators, Railways, or Ports through the normal CWB system of grading grain and entering the flow of trade and commerce by doing so. Part IV of the CWB Act is supposed to be all about tariffs and restricting the "Trade and Commerce" portion of the grain industry... not the Agricultural side of a growers "Produce" before it takes on the benefit of the Canada Grain Act grades.

Parsley;

Where we draw the line in the sand... is clearly a debate on life and death issues. My faith, upon thought and further reflection... says this:

No greater love have I... than to give up my life for my friend (or neighbour). The balance in our society... is that we take the decisions our governments have made as sovereign, including giving our lives to defend our Country.



Must go and grind out some grain now... Have a great day folks!

Now lets figure out how to make some lemonade!

God bless Canada!

[cottonpicken]

Taxes?
Would you guys support the freedom to choose if you paid them or not?
How about guns?
abortion?
j walking
drunk driving
Heh i could get use to this absolute freedom thing.
Or is it just what you righteous folks choose for everyone else.

[grassfarmer]

Fransisco,
"the benefits of lower tariffs worldwide on beef for a Canadian cattleman are obvious yet you regect that outright in defense of supply management. Why would that be if you are not a supply mangement producer looking to protect the value of his quota?"
Believe it or not some people are able to hold beliefs that involve things other than their own self interest. Not that in this case my self interest as a beef producer would actually benefit any from throwing unnecessary financial hardship in the path of my supply managed neighbours, despite the nonsense you spout.

Talk about opening export markets for beef - All you guys that think the US is the best country in the world, take a look at our post BSE experiences in the beef sector. The US are the biggest protectionist bullies in the world and they didn't use much science when making their decisions on border rules. More a case of politicians jumping to the tune of their corporate puppet masters.

As for the EU and beef - I know we could sell a lot more beef there if it were hormone and anti-biotic free. I know the countries that would import and I know some of the companies that would do it. Unlike you who as yet has not been able to identify one country that would import Canadian beef if we were to throw away supply management, because that is just not an issue.

"Do you really think that trade can be increased by accepting irrational and completely arbitrary rules set up by every country we do business with?" In the case of the EU and hormone fed beef, absolutely - the customer is always right.
If I want to export my hormone free beef to Europe why should I be any different to Parsley and organic grains? If I can produce a superior product and find a willing buyer in a free market place who are you to throw roadblocks in my way? The old argument being that I can't sell hormone free because it implies that commodity beef is somehow inferior. Thus you are playing the communist role this time - all beef producers must get the same price for their product, no one is allowed to do better than the pack. You are turning into the thing you accuse the cwb of being mate!

[parsley]

I fully agree with you on this grassfarmer:


"the customer is always right".

That is exactly why choin=ce is the key to a producer's survival.

Government will eat you alive.

Parsley

[Fransisco]

Grassfarmer, when I talk about lowering protectionism around the world, <b>that includes the United States</b> it is part of the world after all. I am fully aware of how protectionist they are and how they are one of the biggest subsidizers in the world. And I totally agree that the BSE ban was not science based, that it was by all accounts political.

I also know that a lot of Europeans don't have a problem with hormone fed beef and if the ban were lifted we could sell all sorts of beef to them. The same is true for GMO canola. It is the EU government that is making the decision to artificially prop up the prices their farmers get and then they claim its on behalf of consumers. Which is a load of bull cookies because it is not their decision to make, it is the customers decision.

And please stop making things up, I never once said anyone should be banned from selling hormone free beef. You are the one advocating that the Canadian government ban the use of hormones across the country even though it has been proven safe time and again.

Use them, don't use them, <b>I don't care</b> just leave the final decision up to the customer. Let the marketplace decide, it is a much better judge of what people want and need than any government ever could be.

[grassfarmer]

Fransisco, You seem to have got yourself tied in knots and come out on the wrong side this time!
You totally misunderstand the mood of EU consumers - they lead their Governments on desire NOT to import hormone beef and GMO products. If they removed the import bans tomorrow and the products were labeled "GMO" or "hormone treated beef" the consumer wouldn't buy it.

It's not me that is making things up, I never stated that you backed a ban on selling hormone free beef. By your support of the N American feedlot/packer stance on hormone free beef you however indicated that you feel the EU ban illegal and unscientific. It is you sir, who is trying to force things on consumers that wish to make other choices.
Have a good day, I've wasted enough time arguing about beef with someone who doesn't know very much about it.

[Fransisco]

That's a bunch of hooey grassfarmer.

You are the one giving lip service to letting the customer decide. Note to grassfarmer, EU beaureaucrats are not your customer any more than the US government or any other government is.

If you are so sure that every single individual European would thumb their nose at our beef the way it is you would have nothing to worry about now would you? But you know very well that most don't care one way or the other,just like North Americans.

I have no problem with two products fighting it out in the marketplace. But you clearly do and are being hypocritical about it.

You are ticked at the Yanks about BSE but love the EU ban when both are the result of junk science and false 'consumer' concern. If anything you should be more ticked at the EU because its been going on longer.

The truth is that their is room for both hormone and non hormone beef but you just don't want to compete and are coming up with excuses not valid reasons.

By the way it wasn't me that declared the EU ban illegal, it was the WTO, twice I believe.

You have no argument.

[Fransisco]

Back to supply management and increasing exports of beef. It is an issue and there is a connection.

It comes in the form of market access. Every WTO country has 'sensitive products' that are given more protection than others. In Canada it is the supply managed boys and girls. But do you know what the most popular commodity in the world is that gets classified this way? Beef.

The average tariff on beef in the 30 WTO countries that use them is 80%. Two examples on the low side of the scale are Japan which is at 39% and Korea which is at 30%.

As a side note there are a number of countries that can under the current trade agreement can legally increase the amount of tariff they can apply on our beef. The Philippines which is sitting at 10% can go up to 40% and the Barbados which currently don't enforce any can go all the way up to 184%.

Now do you honestly believe that if we can get countries like Japan, Korea and the 28 others to drop their tariffs on beef that we wouldn't be able to sell them more and make more money on what we do sell to them? Of course we would.

These countries view beef as a 'sensitive product'. We view the supply managed commodities as 'sensitive', heck we have a 241% tariff on milk, 299% on butter, and a 238% tariff on chicken. The point being we have something to negotiate with if supply management is on the table. We have nothing if it isn't.

Grassfarmer you talk about not wanting to throw any "unnecessary financial hardship in the path of my supply managed neighbours," Yet they don't think twice about doing it to you and their own customers.

If we can produce the exact same or better product as another country for a better price we have every right to be able to sell them to the people living there. And the same is true in reverse, those people have the same right to come here and try and do the same thing in our country.

For some reason you are willing to ignore all this in favour of your corporate conspiracy theories. Newsflash grassfarmer it was the US government that shut the border on BSE not the packers and I seem to remember farmers on the US side cheering them on, I guess you don't remember r-calf in the same way you don't remember American consumer groups and American packers who were calling for the border to be re-opened.

[Fransisco]

Tom if you think the supply managed farmers are all just one big happy family what about these border running dairy farmers? I think you might just find something in common with them.

<b>Dairy Farmer Appeals Dairy Quota Squeeze Play</b>

Ian Jack, National Post,


OTTAWA - Chris Birch isn't the first farmer to face foreclosure, but he may be one of the first to be shut down by his own industry association.

The Barrie, Ont., dairy farmer has been selling directly to the United States for over two years, a practice the Dairy Farmers of Ontario has decreed must stop within months. The group - part lobby, part regulator under provincial legislation - says his business is now illegal after a World Trade Organization ruling that Canadian milk exports are illegally subsidized.

But Mr. Birch and about 100 other dairy farmers say the WTO decision is a pretext and the real motive is reasserting the complete monopoly of the provincial milk marketers.

The case cuts to the heart of the milk system in Ontario and Quebec, where most of Canada's milk is produced. In Ontario, farmers pay $27,000 to the Dairy Farmers for a licence to milk one cow. With an average herd of 60, the cost of getting into the industry is prohibitive for many. The number of dairy farmers in Canada has fallen by over one-fifth since 1990 to 19,000 today.

In return for paying for the quota, farmers get a guaranteed buyer and price, currently about $60 a hectolitre. Mr. Birch says he can sell export milk at a profit, including transportation costs, at $25 a hectolitre.

Mr. Birch held down a factory job to help carry the loan on his 55-cow quota until the plant shut down in 1992, then struggled on until 2000. "The quota was always too big a burden," he said in an interview. Then he got an idea - sell the quota, pull out of the domestic industry entirely, and ship all his production straight from the farm to the United States, where with an import licence he was able to sell it to plants producing cheese.

Because he is completely outside the domestic industry he says he and his fellow non-quota farmers, about 35 of whom he represents directly, are not subsidized and should not come under the net of the WTO decision. That decision, based on a complaint from the United States and New Zealand, found Canadian dairy exports are illegally cross-subsidized by virtue of the high prices guaranteed by the domestic supply management system.

In reply, Gordon Coukell, chairman of Dairy Farmers of Ontario told his regulations to bring Ontario into compliance with the WTO decision. These plans include... all producers will be required to hold the minimum of five kilograms of quota."

Bringing non-quota farmers back into the system will kill their ability to say they are unsubsidized, representing the death of Mr. Birch's business plan. The alternative would be to return to selling domestically, and Mr. Birch said he will not go back to the bad old days of struggling to pay the bank loan on his quota.

"I'm 46 years old and I'm not going to mortgage over 20 years," he said. "I'd sell out of dairy and do something else."

Mr. Birch's Georgian Bay Milk Co. has launched an appeal of the Dairy Farmers decision, an appeal that must be heard by the Dairy Farmers' own board. Mr. Birch has also launched an appeal through an Ontario tribunal on rural affairs.

The Dairy Farmers say they are acting consistent with the federal government's interpretation of the WTO ruling.

"It's as a result really of direction from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The interpretation they're delivering is that all export contracts end," said Bill Mitchell, spokesman. He said federal officials told the group, "fighting for such a small volume of milk could put the whole system back under [WTO] challenge."

André Lemay, spokesman for the federal department, agreed the government interpretation is that the WTO decision covers all producers, whether they are in the quota system or not.

But, he added, "the provinces have to decide how they want to treat these people. That's really up to them. Whatever the provinces want to do, we'll offer advice on how to make it WTO-compliant."

Mr. Birch doesn't see much chance of the Dairy Farmers trying to make his life easier, suggesting other farmers eager to try his way have been waiting to see what happens to him.

"It's very difficult to go to the Canadian public on a regular basis and tell them you need more money for milk every year when there's a group that can produce milk at much lower prices," he said. "There's been no evidence that non-quota producers in the last two years have caused any harm to supply management.

"At the end of the day there has to be right and wrong. Saying we can't export milk ... that's wrong, quite frankly."

[Fransisco]

Here is an even better article on the same subject from macleans.

<blockquote>"Since 2002, Birch has been locked in a legal battle with The Dairy Farmers of Ontario and his provincial government. His crime? Birch's farm in Elmvale, Ont., is proof that Canada can successfully sell milk, one of the world's most protected agricultural products, into one of the world's most capriciously protectionist markets. By doing so, Birch has debunked the notion that dairy and poultry farmers need a monopoly over the Canadian market because unfair global trade practices make it impossible for them to compete abroad. That has raised the ire of bureaucrats and fellow farmers, who want Birch to either play by their rules, or get out of the business." </blockquote>

Read the rest of it here.

http://www.macleans.ca/business/companies/article.jsp?content=20060116_119652_119652

[Fransisco]

Now Tom you explain how it is that this situation with milk is so completely different than what you are fighting for when it comes to wheat and barley?

These folks want to be free to sell to whomever they choose just like you. And are fighting very hard for that right. The right to sell their property.

What is so different about milk Tom?

[dalek]

Funny thing about Chris Birch... if it wasn't for the money he got from SELLING his quota, and American processors paying his legal bills to try to get access to Canadian milk, he would have been bankrupt long ago.

And as for those who think there would be more chickens on the prairies without SM... it's no accident that there's practically no chicken production in the US north of the Mason-Dixon line. When 30-40% of your COP has to go to heating the barns, you can't compete with southern (Tyson) chicken. Without SM, there's no Canadian feather industry buying grain.