Alberta Ag minister?

[cakadu]

And therein lies our greatest problem in ag production. We continue to grow what we cannot sell for any kind of profit and wonder why we can't get ahead. We want to be the lowest cost producer, which relegates us to being price-takers, not price setters.

For the record, I support producers having a choice on where and how to market what they produce. Notice I said market, which is much different and more difficult than just selling it.

[cowman]

Well Linda, glad you have joined us old rightwingers! I think it is important that we all as human beings stand up and demand our rights not to be involved in the "collective" way of thinking?
If I want to be involved in some "grand design"...then that is my right... and if I don't...then that is my right? I find it toatally unacceptable that I have to give up my rights for the good of the "collective"?
Quite frankly, TO HELL WITH THE COLLECTIVE! They can sink or die on their own dime!
Don't want anything from them, don't want to be involved with them, don't want to be forced to knuckle under them, don't want my taxes going to them!

[grassfarmer]

But Cowman you are happy to give up your rights to a right wing almost fascist collective known as Corporate America. Different name, different politics - same result.
What do you think of the group described in a recent Grainnews article, I think it was NorthWest Cattlemans Alliance? Members paid to join the group and market their fat cattle collectively ensuring that they could force the hand of the packers and return extra money to producers pockets. They quoted their cattle that week as having sold into the US at 87c/lb versus the 82c/lb they would have got in the captive supply market of Alberta.
My prediction is if the short term thinkers have their way and get rid of the Wheat board they will be back with their tail between their legs wanting protection from their supposed free market friends the mega-corporations. It's happened before and it will happen again. In unity their is strength - always.

[cowman]

Well a little bit of difference if you voluntarily join something, or if it is forced on you? Sort of like the ABP?
Before Cargill and Tyson there were other packers in Canada...and they knew every dirty trick in the book! In fact it was back in the 1970s they actually were charged with colluding to fix prices, were found guilty, and paid fines! They owned feedlot cattle and used those to influence the market! In fact they operated just like the boys today? But of course they weren't Americans...so I guess that was alright?
Lets see: Canada Packers(which was a lot bigger than either Tyson in Canada or Cargill in Canada)was British owned and Lakeside was Japanese owned! A lot of the staff at Tyson and Cargill came from the management of the "Canadian packers"? In fact the head of AMI in the USA is a good old Canadian boy, Bill Buckner! Manager at Canada Packers Red Deer in the 1980s! Also first manager at Cargill HighRiver.

[coppertop]

good points cowman, a reminder of some of the history for those who either can't remember or weren't here at the time.

[grassfarmer]

Interesting? maybe - relevance? none. What about addressing the point - that collective marketing brings better returns?

[coppertop]

grassfarmer, you may feel that cowman's comments aren't revelant, but I don't agree. We have read numerous comments on this site about Cargill and Tyson, so perhaps a history lesson is relevant information.

[northfarmer]

in our cwb district. one that is IN alberta and Not sk and MB, we bounced out the pro monopolist, collective marketing socialist and elected, by clear majority, a new director who wants to give farmers a choice in marketing of their commodities....

....i raise both beef and crops and all i want is the freedom to sell my wheat production in the same unfetterd manner as my cattle, peas, oats, and canola....

in the end it is not about democracy, or opinions, it is about rights and freedoms .........

I will reserve my opinion on the new ag mininster till I see what he says and does....as for Ed...i knew him when he was the ag minister....and I am sure he will serve us well as premier....

[grassfarmer]

I don't see the relevance of pointing out that past owners of Canadian packing plants may have indulged in the same practices the current ones do. How does that affect the value of producers collectively marketing their produce to receive better returns?

I've lived through a similar experience to the CWB story in Scotland with the milk sector. Government there was forced by a vocal minority of dairy producers to deregulate the industry in 1994 - taking away the marketing boards that had been in place since the 1930's to ensure producers received a fair return from the processors. The producers that wanted this change were typically younger, heavily in debt, larger scale and had a belief that they were more efficient than the average and would be better served by a free marketplace where they could sell their milk on an individual basis to few the large processors.
The average farmgate milk price in 1994 was 24p per litre, in 2006 it was 18p per litre! By the same token store price of milk has risen from 42ppl to 55ppl.
Many, many producers have been forced to exit the industry and even the keenest deregulation advocates realise they were just wrong.
There are many examples of this type of activity all around the world in agriculture - perhaps that is the history you should be taking time to learn.

[cakadu]

It is very important to note the difference between marketing and selling. Selling cattle, canola etc. means that you are taking the commodity price, ergo the lowest price they can get you take - the operative word there being take.

In marketing your products, it means you (or someone in a group that has come together to work for the collective good of all) must do the leg work yourself. You don't just drop your production off at the auction, feedlot, elevator (or whatever they call those big cement monstrosities) and then collect the cheque.

You go out and find the market, make sure that the products you deliver meet their specifications at a price that you can make a profit at. The upside is that you make the profit and it doesn't go into someone else's pockets.

It is a lot easier said than done, but I support it wholeheartedly and have all along. I'm not quite sure where your comment comes from cowman - I have always been for the producer to be able to sell as they see fit.

[kpb]

Well I guess we should all value the freedom to go broke by selling our product the way we see fit. After all it's been working so well for the cattleman and the hog producer--we're all so much better off by marketing our own product rather than having a marketing board work for us, right?

Does anyone deny that the most prosperous farmers in this country are the dairy men? Do you guys not see a link there? We've just about lost our hog farmers, all in a span of about 10 years and we are well on our way to losing our full-time cattle producers. But that's ok because we are free enterprisers, true capitalists with an independent spirit?

grassfarmer is absolutely right in his remarks. The fact is that the multi's, in league with the government and the media, promote the idea of "independent" ranchers and farmers so that they can control us, individually, and do not have to deal with a strong collective. These corporations are not free enterprisers--they want to control the market through monopolies. Cargill, for example, in High River, is an investor in Western Feedlots. I heard yesterday, don't know if it is true, that Cargill has also made an investment in Ranchers Beef. We can expect more of this in the future as the big packers consolidate their hold on the cattle industry in all aspects. Does this seem like a free enterprise system to anyone? Do you think the best way for the individual cattleman to get the best price for his product is to try to work, individually with this monolith?

As I have said before, we need to work as a unified group to get the best price for our product. The moment is already past, I think, but we should have concentrated on our domestic market only, given up the export trade and worked towards owning our own packing plants. Every foreign market that is opened does not benefit the individual cattleman a whit-it only serves the interests of the packers.

The full-time cattleman is just about through in Canada--just look at the dispersal sales. Our industry is becoming a part-time job for people with other means of support. We may not recognize this yet but it will be seen, in retrospect, in five or 10 years time. Just like the full time hog farmers that were quite common just a few short years ago.


kpb

[cakadu]

Kpb, my statement was in fact in support of selling whatever way each producer wants to. If they want to remain part of the CWB, then that is what they should do. If they want to have the choice to go with a group of other producers to sell collectively, go for it.

If they want to be in the supply management sectors, then be part of it. If organic is your game, then get into that market.

No one way is right or wrong - it is what best suits your management style, production decisions etc.

Farmers_son mentioned in another post that when it comes to landowners getting pittances from the oil barons, that analogy can be set in the ag industry as well. We recently returned from a conference where producers were likened to surfs on the land as they were beholden to the various multi-national companies i.e. fertilizer, seed, herbicides etc.

I couldn't agree with you more Kpb, the means of production as we have known it is disappearing and likely far more quickly than what we even realize.

Unless and until we can work together, we are doomed to become a wonderful piece of nostalgia.