Corn Duty

[Riley]

I can certainly understand how livestock producers want to stay on an "even footing" with their U.S. counterparts especially when much of their product is exported into the U.S. and must compete with U.S. grown livestock. However as a grain producer I feel somewhat left out in the cold. If the U.S. corn producer received what the corn is actually selling for on the open market, that would be one thing...but he's not. He receives that price in addition to his LDP payment which can vary depending on how adept he is at reading the markets. And if I'm not mistaken the LDP program is available on 100% of his actual production and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that no premium is paid by the farmer at all for this program.

Tom's point is well taken, that when a predictable subsidy is paid to the grain producer some/much of that price increase will be "capitalized" into higher rent and land prices etc. However, that would happen no matter how the producer receives his income. If grain prices rise, land values and rents are sure to follow. Nobody particularly likes getting paid by the government to make up part of their income, but in this case I'm not sure there is any alternative. If anyone has any other ideas I would be glad to hear them.

[craig]

I seriously question the logic that it makes sense to ship more livestock south in response to the corn duty. At least in Alberta if feed users can't be competitive at current feed grain prices then you my as well kiss feed grain production in Canada out the door. It bothers me that so many producers seem to fail to realize the benefits of supporting canadian industry. Many seem to want more government support, yet it takes tax dollars to provide this support. If we continue to take the attitude that it is everyone for themselves, in the end we chart a course where everyone will fail.