Open letter to cattle producers re: ALMS

[per]

I would think you would also be opposed to a mandatory non directional check-off fs.

[cowboss]

So this ALMS is going to open up new markets for our beef and capture more money for us producers. That would be great if the Alberta government actually had the ability to do that ....however international trade falls under the Federal governments mandate. The one problem with that is that as long as the Feds need central Canada's votes they refuse to bring supply management issues to the trade table and without that topic being open for discussion we will never get fair beef access in any trade deal (no matter how good our product is).

[wilagro]

cowboss: If supply management was eliminated, I am sure that it would not affect beef marketing one bit but we would have capitulated to the demands of the USA primarily with absolutely NO guarantees on the beef trade issue. I wouldn't trust them as they do not keep their word (a la the softwood lumber issue) and others.

Supply management has been a godsend for Canadian dairy, snd chicken producers.

[grassfarmer]

Cowboss, It took me a couple of reads before I followed your thinking on the supply management issue. Initially I thought you were condemning the Feds for not introducing supply management into the beef sector. Reading it again I guess you believe that by sacrificing supply management in the dairy and feather industry in Canada we will somehow gain market access to certain markets.
I do not believe this argument for a minute. If you do please tell me which countries would import extra Canadian beef tomorrow if we sacrifice the most successful sectors of Canadian agriculture (dairy and feather). I posed this very question to my ABP fall producer meeting last year and no-one could name a country, yet it is still trotted out as fact.
WTO talks are not about establishing "fair trade" and hence improving producers returns, they are about making it easier for multinational corporations to move product around the world. If that means importing x'000 tons of beef from Timbucktoo to Canada to hold down the market price here that is what they will do. WTO trade talks are not producer friendly. Look at the participants - Governments and Corporate heads greasing each others palms.

[cowboss]

The Feds completed a bi-lateral trade agreement with either Columbia or Peru last year ( I cann't remember which one but they are negotiating with the other country this year..hence my confussion). They refused to entertain any discussion about supply management issues and therefore Canada didn't receive trade equivalency (in grade, cuts or amount) with the USA and this is setting precedent, in beef trade, with the other countries in this region.
Beef has some of the highest trade tariffs on it as any commodity. Countries use these tariffs as trade barriers to protect their producers. I believe that if the WTO could of been able to lower these tariff levels, we would be able to realize a better bottom line.
There are alot of good points in the ALMS, but I don't see it doing everything (and being the only way to do things) that the Alta. govt does.

[kato]

As a Manitoba producer, I have some questions here.

What does this new approach do to those in other provinces who sell calves? There are lots of cattle who come from Manitoba and Saskatchewan and end up in Alberta feedlots. Is the subsidy only on Alberta born cattle? Or is it on out of province cattle who come from age verified, premise identified herds?

What compensation will we receive if/when a tariff goes on at the border? Can we sue the Alberta government? At least if a tariff is applied, Alberta producers will have pocketed some money from the provincial government to help tide them over. We get nothing.

The federal government's approach to this is to tell producers in other provinces to lobby their own provincial governments to match the Alberta approach. FAT CHANCE! Not in this province. It ain't goin to happen.

Has the Canadian federal government decided that agricultural policy is no longer a national concern? I cannot describe how disappointed I am in the Harper government over this. You would think that with a long tradition of being agriculture friendly, and with having the first western prime minister in a very long time, we could expect better of them. I'm actually thinking of not voting for the first time in my life in the next election because quite frankly there is no one worth voting for.

[Kathy]

I totally agree with holistic measures. We actually changed our ranching practices after 2003... unlike the hundreds of calf producers that sold their calves in the fall for less than cost of production.

We keep our calves over the winter (on hay) and grass them all summer. However, there is one desiding factor and that is moisture. The government can manage our business all they want, but they can't control the weather.

Policy is not law! Why on earth would producers cooperate with ALMS unless it is mandated law. If policy were law, all our little girls would be forced to have a very dangerous series of HPV shots this year in grade 5. Along with the Hepatitis B shot. [line up for their aluminum injections]

Thankfully this is not how our country is run (yet). Laws must be passed in a manner that protects our Charter Rights. Yet I know from person experience that the laws of Canada are being violated (re: vaccinations).

If and when the government attempts to proclaim their AB Animal Health Act, it will be challenged because it cannot grant the minister unconditional rights to licence "anybody". The act must specify who is under the law. But our minister is going to try to do this (license ranchers) via regulation.

I have seen our ranching operation survive the tough times, because we changed our practices. What was the point of changing, if the government is planning to 'subsidize" all the guys that haven't.

All this talk of government management and unified systems.... sounds alot like the old Soviet Union to me. Communism at its finest.

To hell with individual rights and privleges. Good-bye to property rights. We must comply for the good of the industry.

[wilagro]

The only way for this ALMS gimmick to work properly and fairly would require involvement of the adjoining provinces of at least Sask., Manitoba and B.C. as well as the FEDS...after all, calves find markets far from their home.

The more I read about ALMS, the more I think that it was hastily and poorly designed. Political motives directed this, I am sure. If farmer/ranchers can't receive adequate returns from the marketplace then perhaps a close look at the marketplace and the monopolies involved in running the so-called cattle exchanges and the packingplants and their practices would be in order.

ALMS will maintain the marketplace status quo and assist the monopolies even more than in the past.

[smcgrath76]

I was trying to keep my mouth shut on this post, but...
I can't see this money really "changing the industry". I can see the regulations changing things quite a bit, however until the producer owns cattle right through to the consumer, I can't see how they are ever going to get more than US live or rail price less the basis. If the border were to close this price would be much less than US, but the upper potential price in the current paradigm is just that. If producers are going to continue to market cattle in the same ways (for example presort sales in the fall), then they will not be able to extract further value from the marketplace, no matter what they do.
To truly say the program is a success (secures many new lucrative markets and adds value to calves in AB right back to the producer), the price would have to detatch from the US price. I don't think that will happen.
I don't think the vast majority of producers particularly want to change how they do things/have done things or they would have already changed.
350 million could have built/bought a slaughter facility, or encouraged value chains, but this way it only stems the tide for a little while.
I am not sure that saving the industry is a realistic goal, perhaps we should look more at enabling the people that want to change and letting the rest do as they wish. I know for several of my friends and neighbours the requirements of the program are onerous given their current production paradigm. They will really struggle to comply.

[per]

What parts are to onerous for these folks, sm? In a status quo world would their beef operation survive without changing? I agree that only those who hang on to the tail right to the consumer will be the ones to survive and the 300 million could be spend more wisely than a prop up the unsustainable, delay the inevitable, welfare payment. As far as age verification, premise id etc. if we hadn't already done these things for other reasons, I would probably resist out of principal as well.