Farmer organizations

[cowman]

Why is it that we tend to have all these specific commodity organizations that can't seem to get along? So we have the Canadian Cattlemans Assoc. fighting with the grain growers groups and the supply managed groups fighting the free market groups. Any general farm groups seem to have sort of become obsolete. And maybe with good reason as they became basically useless. But why did they? Was it because they were little more than an old boys club that never really accomplished anything? You know groups like the NFU or Wild Rose?
I believe the federal government likes the idea of all these splintered commodity groups because then it doesn't have to do anything to disturb its masters(the food processors). The people who process the bread, beer, meat, milk and retail it are all one and the same! They also control the money supply and all the inputs we use in farming. I am sure they are quite happy with a devided agricultural industry. You know the Bay Street crowd and their Yankee counterparts.
Of course a lot of people think groups like the NFU are dingbats...probably with good cause! But what if you had a super-general farm group with some teeth and not afraid to take some action! Calls for serious action like rotating strikes. Say no cattle delivered to the packing plants for a week! Or hold all grain off the market for one month? Or nobody buy any fertilizer/spray for one year? Or machinery? Do you think this would have the desired effect? And when the government tried to bring in cheap imports, meet them at the border with a fire bomb!!! The farmers in France do this all the time! And if things don't change then off to Ottawa...not to protest but to bring them some serious violence!!! Once again the French farmers do it all the time! Works pretty well for them.

[Deb]

The only strength the NFU or Wild Rose have is in its members numbers. The more people that belong, the more clout they will have.

[cowman]

Those two organizations don't have any clout. I think the NFUs membership is down to 4 dairy farmers in Ont. and one chicken farmer in P.E.I. ! Which is a good thing. We don't need a "farmers union" that doesn't do anything. How long has the NFU been around? What have they accomplished?
If the Alberta teachers union was as effective as the NFU we.d still be paying them $600/year!! Not much sense having a union if they just have conferences and drink coffee!
The Quebec "union" seems to get some results. Maybe we need to all join them!!

[Deb]

Like I said, the NFU and Wild Rose need members to be strong. If you think they aren't accomplishing things, it's because people don't join to add their voice and help out.

NFU President Stewart Wells was in Ottawa in January to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agrifood and to meet with MPs and Food Inspection Agency staff. They lobbied for mandatory labelling for all GMO food.

NFU gave a brief to the Manitoba Clean Environment Commission hearing, opposing corporatization of Manitoba potato sector.

NFU led the fight against Bovine Growth Hormone for one thing. The NFU newsletter magazine is the best thing in the mail and I read it cover to cover because it explains what is going on in the food industry. Besides informing the public on the good things happening with small farms, they fight for small farms. They suggest alternatives to corporate agriculture. If all farmers who wanted to save their small farms joined, they could get more done and be even more effective. So instead of putting them down and complaining that they don't do anything, why not join them and help them out. The "they" you refer to is all of "us".

[cowman]

And I would suggest the reason most farmers don't support the NFU is because they get sidetracked on these little issues instead of keeping focussed on the big picture...which should be more money for the farmer! Now whether you agree with hormones or GMO crops or pesticides and chemical fertilizers is not what a union is supposed to be about. I know a lot of people here don't agree with GMO crops here but from my own experience they are a money maker!! As you know I don't grow any crops but hay but I do rent some land to my cousin on a crop share basis. He grew round up ready canola on it the first year it came out and it was not only the best canola crop I've ever seen but the cleanest!! And the most profitable!
Now if The NFU decides this isn't acceptable and gets GMO crops banned do you think there could be some farmers a tad upset? Instead groups like this should be working toward things like assuring that we are getting a fair price for our products. I think we need to realize that Europe doesn't want or need our products. There is very little need to export as the world is awash with food. We need to limit our production to our own country with any surplus being sent as food aid. Paid for by everybody through our taxes. Maybe the ideal situation would be a slight shortage of food. But lets not become inefficient in our production just to reduce supplies. Instead we could set aside large areas for the deer and the antelope to play!! The bottom line is if I can net $100/acre by not growing anything I'd be just as happy as if I was netting $100 growing a crop. That is what we should be working towards.

[rodbradshaw]

Cowman
Are you talking supply management? It is about time we started reducing production although when I suggested it in the Ag policy forum you would think that I called people's mothers a nasty name. It is about time we woke up and smelled the coffee. We can no longer continue to maximize production and expect to get a return from an over supplied market place. I have long suggested that Europe and the US should give away the extra production instead of lowering the price to people who can afford to pay for it.
Rod

[cowman]

Supply management has gotten a bad name because the government ran it, and we all know what winners they are? But really isn't " supply management" what every other business practices? I mean look at farm machinery, fertilizer, oil and gas? Look at the big food retailers?
Don't they really practice supply management?
The "groups" that sell fertilizer...don't they basically all have the same price? And the large grocery stores...aren't their prices basically all SET the same?
The farmer is caught between one group maximizing prices and another group trying to keep what he recieves low. Often these two groups are basically the same group!
These large corporations put the squeeze on the farmer at both ends. Why can't the farmer use his position to lower his costs and increase the price he recieves? The only way to do this is to become organized. Don't let the government have anything to do with it, because they are the lackeys of these large corporations and will screw it up for sure. The basic idea is to give some power back to the producer and take it away from the corporate parasite that has been sucking him dry.
And why do we continue to produce excess product so the food giants can keep the price down? If there was only enough wheat grown to satisfy 90% of the domestic demand, what would the price be? Especially if no imports were allowed in?

[Deb]

Once upon a time the United Farmers of Alberta had farmer co-ops that bought inputs in bulk and sold at cost, and the UFA also pooled their crops, found markets and sold them for the best price. Why not join the Wild Rose people and ask them to do that now?

[pandiana]

No mystery here! In order to maintain a lifestyle at least on par with the average urban dweller we need more money for our product. (CBC news this am said Canadians spend about 1/2 less on food that they do on transportation)Input costs and overhead for the average well managed farm are beyond our control for the most part. I have never heard so much gloom in my part of the world as has been expressed throughout this extraordinarly tough winter and spring. Cattle prices have taken another dive as well. And its not over yet. Many cattlemen are running out of feed. Talk abounds about $115.00 bales of hay or higher. Feed grain prices have risen and we are starting to see very thin cows just as many are starting to calve. Many farmers reaction is to quit because there does not seem to be an answer as to how to get the leverage required to demand fair compensation.
I agree that the one solution that would be workable would be supply management. With so many people hurting, would this be the time to generate enough support to get movement on this issue?

[pandiana]

Deb, UFA is not exactly the model I would like to pursue. They started out as a farmer oriented cooperative but have moved farther towards profit and expansion. Yes, you do get some measure of profit sharing but how long does it take you to spend $100.00.

[cakadu]

Just a cautionary note before we all jump onto the supply management bandwagon. It will ONLY work if it maintains domestic supply. You cannot get into the export market and maintain the artifical costs of supply managed commodities as you have to compete with the lower costs producers. If you take a look at the dairy industry, for example, the guys on the export side of things are having a far tougher go of it because they have to compete with countries like New Zealand who are the lowest cost producers of milk. Having said that though, I feel that if they want to protect the domestic supply, then they have no business trying to play in the export market as well. You can't have your cake with the milk too.

Supply mangement was essentially brought in to protect the "family farm" and make sure that the little guy had a chance to survive. That is no longer the case as the smaller farms are slowly being gobbled up by the larger as the larger farms are the only ones who can afford to keep buying quota. Where you could once make a living (in the West - out in Quebec where supply management is the most concentrated, therefore it is a different story) with a 40 to 60 cow dairy, you can no longer do that and you have to have around 100 cows plus in order to derive most of your income from the farm.

As consumers, we are helping to keep the supply management guys going because their costs of production are built right into the costs that are passed along to us. If they had to deal with world prices, our dairy, chicken and eggs would be considerably lower.

Supply management sets up artificial barriers to entry because of the high quota costs and capital costs to get going. It also does not allow for too much in the way of exit strategies because who can afford to buy existing operations without going so far in to debt you will likely never see daylight. I know of one fellow who sold his operation for $9 million. How many can pull together those kind of capital resources.

Of course, sitting on the other side of the fence, that makes a handy little retirement fund. (Rumor is he did put it into buffalo, so who knows how much he'll end up with).

There are problems in supply management too. We just don't happen to hear about them and they certainly don't want the average person to hear about their pricing formulas etc. There was a great paper written by Owen Lippert of the Fraser Institute called "Milk - a perfect food, a perfect mess" which helps to explain a lot.

The grass always looks greener!

[Deb]

No, no, Pandiana, I meant lets go BACK to what the United Farmers stood for. The present UFA are only a tiny shadow of what the United Farmers used to be.

[cakadu]

This article appeared in today's edition of the New York Times. Seems like things are tough all over.

KANSAS CITY, Mo., April 10
(Bloomberg News) — Farmland
Industries Inc., the nation's largest farm
cooperative, said today that its loss had
widened in its most recent quarter.

The cooperative, based in Kansas City, had
a loss of $50 million in the three months
ended Feb. 28, compared with a loss of
$1.3 million a year earlier, a spokeswoman,
Sherlyn Manson, said. Sales in the quarter,
the second of its fiscal year, fell 33 percent,
to $1.6 billion.

A surplus of cheap fertilizer and the rising
cost of oil compounded weaker demand for
the seeds, pesticides and fuel that Farmland
sells to its 600,000 members, analysts said.

Farmland's chief executive, Robert Honse, said the co-op had hoped for strong fertilizer sales this spring. Instead, he said, reduced demand because of the drought in the wheat fields had led to significant losses.

Farmland's fertilizer business had a loss of $35.9 million, compared with a loss of $3.2 million a year earlier.

[cowman]

Linda: You are exactly right about the export thing. Once again I reiterate" supply management got a bad name because the government ran it". Supply management, as envisioned by the federal government, was really set up to secure a stable supply for "big food". And while the marketing boards can set the price for the raw product they do not set the price in the grocery store! So if Safeway wants to make a 40% profit, it doesn't really matter what the price for raw milk, chickens, eggs etc. is...they just add 40%! This is one of the reasons that food is fairly high while the farmer gets so little! It is the processer/retailer(often the same owner) that rakes in the money. They squeeze the farmer and they squeeze the consumer. A good book(although an old one) is "The Politics of Food" by Don Mitchel. Tells you pretty clearly how the food corporations and the federal government have conspired to rip off the farmer, worker and consumer!

[Steve]

Who is this Government bad guy? Do you think a large number of warlords could run the country better, or what do you propose?