Phraseology problem...

[smcgrath76]

This came on my CCA news...

The CCA Talks Chop on Alberta Prime Time

In case you missed it, CCA director and
animal care committee chair, Dave
Solverson, recently appeared on Alberta
Prime Time to take part in a panel
discussion examining whether cattle
should be fed grass or grain; which is
better for the animal and ultimately the
health of the consumer. Solverson, also
an executive of the Alberta Beef
Producers, was joined in the discussion
by a grass-fed proponent.
Solverson landed several key points in
the discussion. He set the tone
immediately after being introduced ‘as a
producer who feeds his cattle grain’ by
clarifying for the show’s host the
meaning of grain finishing (ie: that 80
per cent of the production of that
animal is grass-based, with an average
of 100-150 days spent on a high grain
ration to finish the animal to the
acceptance of consumers). Other points
made included that the barley fed to
cattle in Alberta is from the same
botanical family as the grasses
producers already use and the importance
to the structure of western agriculture
to have a vibrant feed grains market.
He noted grain-finishing is the practice
of the majority of producers, and talked
about the positive attributes the
practice imparts on beef and the demand
for the trim.
“Alberta built its reputation on grain
fed beef and it is world recognized as a
tremendous product,” Solverson told the
show’s host.
To watch the piece in full, go to:
http://www.albertaprimetime.com/Stories.
aspx?
pd=1235&FlashVars=Video/PTG_071410.flv.


My thoughts...
I for one, did not like the pitting of
one type of production against another,
or the fact that CCA would be seen to
endorse one type of production over
another. I think grain
feeding/finishing is fine, and don't
have issues with the practice, but I
think the same about grass fed. Each
type of beef (broad categorically
speaking) has different attributes that
can help serve a broader customer base
than any single type of beef alone. I
heard Tom Field (executive of NCBA) at
BIF tell the crowd he supports organic,
natural, grainfed, grassfed, humanely
raised, etc. Basically he said he
supports beef and anything that serves
any segment of the consumer base and
grows market share.
I am not sure that the type of
discussion above embodies the same
perspective on our side of the border.
I like Dave and think it is fine for him
to appear on Prime Time representing
himself on this issue or even AB Cattle
Feeders, but not CCA. I am surprised
the CCA article did not even mention
Griebel's position.

[grassfarmer]

Good old Dave - proving again why we need a refundable checkoff levy. Along with his cronies he uses similar dumb arguments to suggest that the status quo is our only option, the packers are good and that we must be allowed to sell hormone implanted beef to people who don't want to buy it.

So was he simply lying or is his math not very good? 80% of the production is grass based would indicate on a 1300lb steer only 260lbs of that gain is put on with grain in the feedlot even with only 100-150 days on feed it's more than that.

As always in Alberta - the facts are negotiable as long as the ideology stands.

[kato]

Careful guys, this sounds like the old tried and true "divide and conquer" principle again.

Personally I think cattle producers, feeders, and everyone else should try and avoid this debate at all costs.

Instead they should all be working together and telling consumers that there is a beef product out there to suit the preferences of everyone.

This fact should be one of our biggest strengths, not just another way to divide us. Why does GM make compact cars, trucks, vans, and family sedans? Because not every GM customer wants the same vehicle, yet they may prefer to buy GM.

To be able to provide whatever type and style of beef that a customer could possibly want is an amazing selling point. Unless you personally know a small farmer somewhere, you sure can't get that kind of variety in poultry or pork.

So we don't need to fall into this trap. We need to be smarter than that.

[Happytrails]

Right on Kato. In that spirit I will once again take on good ol' GF. I don't know why he came to Alberta where, in his mind he lives among the stupid. However people who live in glass houses had best avoid stones, something he hasn't learned. I would like to support the 80/20 forage/grain ratio for beef production that Dave Solverson stated. What simple farmer missed is that the 1300 lb steer had a 1300 lb mother that ate 26 lbs of forage every day for a year to produce the 550 lb weaned calf. From 550 to 850 he likely consumed about 3000 lbs of forage in hay and pasture. From 850 to 1300 he likely ate 2700 lbs of barley and 700 lbs of forage. So forage consumption is the 9500 lbs his mother ate plus 3000 700= 13200. Grain consumption is the 2700 lbs at the feedlot. Total feed required to produce 1300 lb steer is 13200 2700=15900 lbs. That would be 83% forage and 17 % grain. HT

[grassfarmer]

Semantics HT, pure semantics - you forgot to add in the bulls share of forage to produce the weaned calf. You work out a least grain scenario basing it on the cow never getting grain, the calf being back-grounded on hay and pasture only which the majority aren't. And the point of all this? so that Dave can discredit another levy paying producer who happens to produce beef by a different method. As Sean pointed out it is unfortunate that CCA monies are being used to fund this campaign against fellow producers.

BTW it appears you don't in fact agree with what Kato posted - it wasn't me being devisive it was Dave and the CCA with you being quick to jump in on their side. What were you saying about glass houses and stones again?

[loric]

Good morning everyone. I thought I would shed some light onto why Dave Solverson was on Alberta Primetime. ABP/CCA gets media requests daily. The first rule of thumb is to never say "no comment" when a reporter wants your side of the story. If you are asked to contribute to the conversation, you are better off being an active participant rather than the one that wouldn't talk.

As for the CCA mention....Dave is on the CCA board of directors representing Alberta.

[smcgrath76]

Lori,
I don't disagree with what you state,
however I do have an issue with a
director being put into a position where
they are in essence "facing off" against
another producer in the same beef
industry (although with a different
production model). In my mind this is
counterproductive at best and damaging
to the industry as a whole. It is not
grain vs. grass, hormone implant vs.
not, or trying to prove that one is
superior to the other.
I think someone from ACFA or likewise
would perhaps be capable of speaking on
behalf of feeders without representing
the broader "industry". I also do not
think that CCA should be putting this in
their news in an unbalanced way,
regardless of what role the spokesperson
plays in the CCA organization. I think
due credit should be given to both sides
in the production model debate.
Just my 2 cents.

[loric]

Thanks Shaun. I will pass this information along.

[kato]

We need to stick together! If we've learned any lesson in the past few years this should be it.

Somebody wants a big fat soggy juicy barley fed steak? We can do that. Someone else wants a real lean steak? We can do that. Someone yet again wants a steak produced entirely on grass? We can do that. Their neighbour prefers steak raised ethically? We can do that. If someone wants no hormones, or drugs, or organic, we can do that too.

This is my point. We all produce beef. We do it in different ways, but it's all beef. Different, not better. Better is in the mind of the consumer, and they certainly do not agree on what's best, so why should we? We should just all do the job in our own ways that suit our situations, and what we have to work with.

We can provide beef to fill whatever preferences there are out there. This is a huge marketing advantage, and one that the other meats do not have, especially poultry. There is some variation in pork, but only if you personally know the right people.

This is the message all of our representatives need to put out at all times, and they need to try and avoid this situation where they choose one over the other.

[littledoggie]

kato, I couldn't agree more. We need to stick together. What really bugs me is when agriculture people come to Canada because they don't like the system in their old country, and then advocate for things to be just like they were back home! Maybe we should have COOL for ranchers and feeders so we know who to take seriously.

[kato]

What we really need is COOL for beef. Now that's something we must all be able to agree on!

Unless we've got treaty status, we all came from other countries because we didn't like the system there if you look back far enough. The first ones in my family tree did it almost 200 years ago when they left Scotland. The most recent ones did it 100 years ago, when they also left Scotland.

Big agribusiness, and big business in general's worst fear is that the peasants will get together and agree to work together. Strength in numbers. That's the ticket. And we can't get there if we keep using up precious energy fighting each other.

[grassfarmer]

Sorry, I must have missed the line on the immigration form where it said you had to take a vow of silence before applying.
Anti-foreigner bigotry aside this issue was not about me. It was about one Canadian producer, Dave Solverson backed apparently by the CCA, trying to score points against another Canadian producer Richard Greibel and his chosen method of beef production. So don't preach to me about presenting a united front if only it wasn't for the foreigners.

[littledoggie]

Like kato said, we all came from somewhere else. Some of us sooner then others. No offense intended to anyone in particular. Differences in opinion are rampant in this industry. A few years back when Marketing Council held public meetings around Alberta, they mentioned they would like to get ALL GROUPS around the table. Maybe they were right. If an idea can't convince the majority of peers, then maybe it's not a good idea. A good idea is a good idea. Now, if all producer groups were at one table.......wouldn't that be interesting.

But the purpose of this thread is Dave Solverson's interview on PrimeTime and I have to agree that there was a lapse in judgement in arguing about production methods. Primetime touches on issues not addressed on regular news, controversial and otherwise. It does tend to generate discussion.

[kato]

As we have seen here!