Interesting information

[grassfarmer]

Just reading the latest BIG-C newsletter which contains an interesting revelation which is perhaps very relevant to our discussion on beef industry producer groups.
I quote " As members of Canada Beef Export Federation we recently received a letter from Ted Haney, CBEF president which states: Japans's former Minister of Agriculture (Kamei)has been on record many times stating that Canada or the USA could test cattle for Bse as a way of reestablishing trade with Japan. This assumed policy position has not been widely reported in either Canadian or American press, primarily as the option has not been supported by industry or Government"

So all the speeches given by ABP/CCA and Government officials disparaging BIG-Cs plans because no-one had actually confirmed there were customers that would buy BSE tested beef were blatant lies.
This story amazes me when you think it through - CBEF, funded by Canandian cattle producers levy money through ABP and CCA is deciding what information to release, thereby misleading producers, and also deciding what policies to follow based on what "industry and Government" want. For "industry" read the "packing industry". I thought the aim of CBEF was to increase exports of beef overseas and thereby presumably improve returns for Canadian producers through increased demand for our beef?
If this is the smoking gun that proves CBEF in fact works for the US packers and against Canadian beef producers maybe it is time Haney was forced to resign and CBEF were cut free of their (our)levy funding.
Oh, but I forgot, even if this information was given to every producer in the country on a plate would 3% make a fuss or protest? maybe 5%? (up there with the ABP "majority") - I doubt it, as usual producers are just to damn apathetic to do anything about their future. I feel sorry for the guys involved with BIG-C and the NFU - so much work and time put in on a thankless task.

[Willowcreek]

Grassfarmer-- Very interesting...But it isn't surprising- anyway not with the USDA -- as USDA has been behind the scene and in the backroom on many things- most of it in packers backrooms... How much have you seen printed about the US BEV program? Almost nothing, but it is a new program that USDA set up in order to get export markets back- slaughter houses have to be certified to ship out of the program- verifying the beef is UTM, of US origin, and not slaughtered in a plant that slaughters OTM's, plus some other restrictions ...This only came to light when Egypt, Taiwan and others agreed to open exports under this program...But they still have not come out with publicity on it-- They don't want people to know what they had to do to get countries to open markets- and they definitely didn't want anyone to know that they were requiring US verified beef.......

[farmers_son]

I heard Ted Haney say that the Japanese would view Canadians testing UTM cattle as a betrayal at this point in the negotiations to see North American beef reenter Japan. Japan is realigning their industry to only test over twenty months and is not looking for North America to jump in now and say lets forget about all this science jazz, we were just bluffing and now we are going to test if that is what you want.

Sounds to me like Ted Haney is doing a juggling act to keep the various players in the industry happy.

It is interesting to note how desperately we continue to hang onto this notion that we sell beef. We sell live cattle and until such time as I either own a packing plant or Japan starts buying our live calves I do not loose much sleep over what is Cargill and Tyson are doing with their beef. People seem to want to hang onto the notion that if Cargill exports beef to Japan that somehow some of that benefit ends up in our pocket. Dream on.

[grassfarmer]

farmers_son, I meant that I thought the original intent of CBEF was to sell extra beef overseas with some of the extra dollars eventually coming back to the primary beef producer. I am well aware that this model does not work currently.
You say that "until such time as I either own a packing plant or Japan starts buying our live calves I do not loose much sleep over what is Cargill and Tyson are doing with their beef."
presumably you are not planning to pursue either of the options indicated, none the less I would think it is in your interest and every other primary producers interest to actively be involved in how Cargill and Tyson are marketing our beef. Unless we are involved and proactive in changing this process the plight of producers will not improve. The value theft from our cattle is being perpetrated by these two foreign corporations and until their monopoly is somehow broken we have not got a bright future. I think producers maybe need to lose a little sleep over this issue.

[cowman]

I just assume neither of you guys prescribe to the "trickle down" philosophy of Ronald Reagan?
I believe in the long term it might actually work?

[grassfarmer]

I think the only "trickle down effect" most beef producers are feeling at the moment is that of being P***** on by the multi-national corporations.

[kpb]

the trickle-down theory of Ronald Reagan was never meant to be applied to one industry but, rather, was a way of justifying tax cuts to wealthier individuals who would, presumably, spread their money around the marketplace.

grassfarmer, the idea that opening new markets for our export beef will somehow help the primary producers will never work, under any scenario you can imagine, including the current one, unless the primary producer owns both the means of processing the cattle and a means of limiting the supply of fats. Otherwise all the benefits of new markets will always, repeat always, end up in the processors' pockets.

Because these processors also operate in the capitalistic environment and are responsible to their shareholders to make as much money as possible they will never pass on whatever benefits new markets will give as long as they have a virtual endless supply of cattle to draw from. The only way they will offer more than the absolute minimum amount they can get away with for fats is if forced to do so by the government or by producers of that commodity (a cartel). Otherwise they will offer just enough to ensure themselves of a reliable supply of fats.

grassfarmer, this is not just the case today but in any other scenario you can imagine other than producer-owned plants and producer-limited supply. Are you still convinced that it is the fault of the primary producer that we are in a worst situation now than two years ago? Has anyone in any of our illustrious cattle organizations ever considered scrapping our export plans (which benefit only the packers) and working with U.S. ranchers to form a cartel to limit supply to these multi's? You blame the producers for this, somehow, but do you expect no leadership or initiatives from ABP, CCA, etc? Why do we bother electing anyone if we can't count on them to represent us?

kpb

[madcow]

That would explain the warm damp feeling grassfarmer.I thought it was the humidity here in the east.The only other thing that trickles down are the costs of production,they always end up in the cow/calf guys lap,and where can we go with them?

[grassfarmer]

kpb, "Has anyone in any of our illustrious cattle organizations ever considered scrapping our export plans (which benefit only the packers) and working with U.S. ranchers to form a cartel to limit supply to these multi's?" - I don't know have you suggested it to them?

I am not supporting the "illustrious cattle organisations" in this argument because they have done a good job. They have done an appalling job in my view but on balance I believe the average producer is just as much to blame as the officials. They are supposed to be our elected representatives but if 90% of eligible producers chose not to use their votes to elect suitable candidates with appropriate policy ideas the fault lies with the producers not the organisation.

Your North American rancher cartel limiting cattle supply to the multi's is an interesting idea but without thinking deeply on it I fear it wouldn't work as they could simply outsource enough cattle overseas to continue to fix prices here. Expecting either the Canadian or US Governments to effectively introduce a form of supply management by blocking offshore imports is the type of action I'm constantly told is akin to communism and presumably wouldn't be considered an option especially as it would mean curbing the free market profiteering of US corporations.
It's an idea though - something that producers and industry officials are desperately short of... now if you could persuade some neighbours and friends of it's merits maybe you could start a groundswell of producer support.
I hope it goes further than Cam Ostercamps campaign, the closest thing we've had thus far to producer concensus in the last two years.

[cowman]

As long as our federal government continues to pursue policies that rely on free trade(not fair trade) we will never get true value for our product?
Now that the US has CAFTA, I assume we will soon be competing with the whole world?
Can you or I compete with the South American rancher? Can we compete with countries who heavily subsidize their product? I remember back in the seventies when cow beef was getting pricey, the federal government opened the doors to cow beef from Ireland! After a bitter fight and a lawsuit it was finally revealed that the Irish cows were being subsidized to the tune of 70 cents a pound! This is free trade?
Whenever beef, or pork or for that matter just about any ag product gets too high the government will do everything in its power to get that price down? A good example was a couple of years ago when barley was getting pricey...in came the heavily subsidized US corn! Corn that by the way was full of fusarium! All the rules went out the door real quick!
It is very obvious the federal government pursues a "cheap food policy" whether they actually state it or not? Can't have the city slickers wasting their hard earned dollars on food...why it might interfere with buying a new RV or big screen TV!

[cowman]

good comments cowman.

[grassfarmer]

Cowman, wasn't it the southern Alberta feedlots who were buying in the cheap US corn a couple of years ago rather than the Canadian Government?
Isn't this the kind of free enterprise you usually are a champion of?
Why would you be against Canadian producers making money in this way when you are happy to see Cargill and IBP getting on with their "right and proper business" by screwing Canadian cattle producers?

[cowman]

Of course it was the feedlots buying the corn, but the government violated its own rules by allowing it in. The number one rule they violated was the Pest Control Act. That was the provincial government?
The federal government could have stood up and challenged the subsidized corn as being dumped into the Canadian market? It was a complicated subsidy program and probably would have passed as "green" in the WTO but still the Canadian government could have challenged it...sort of like the US routinely does when they want to restrict trade?
Bottom line was the Canadian grain farmer saw a major price reduction for his feed grain? Both the province and the feds once again sacrificed the Canadian grain farmer for the sake of the livestock industry. It just wasn't fair.

[cowman]

Agricultural Service Boards across the province put forward resolutions to the provincial government to ban importation of corn due to fusarium, but it did no good.

[BFW]

Would you guys like a little cheese with your "whine"? When you have cattle on full feed you have to have the assurance that there will be barley in bin in sufficient quantity to feed the cattle for more than a few days at a time. (The cattle have a tendency to get a little anxious when their breakfast isn't delivered.) The fact is that this assured supply was not available at hardly any price so in came the corn. There was little or no saving by doing this but the cattle got fed and slaughtered here rather than exported (which probably made most sense economically.) Bottom line was prairie farmers either could not or would not service the feed grain market that year.