Why would Canadian Cattlemen support the monopoly?

[cowman]

parsley: In 2002, after a very tough drought year, barley prices started to rise. In 2002 the border was open to cattle and calves started moving in large numbers across the border.
Now this is from my perspective and probably not the general feeling of most cattlemen and certainly not our so called organizations: I also had some barley! I was looking forward to the higher price to offset the lower drought yields? Sold the calves and they went to Washington...there was not a crash in the calf prices?
So what happens? In comes the subsidized corn from the USA! Down goes the barley price! All the feedlots applaud because they can now get cheap corn...and force the price of barley down? The fact was it just wasn't fair?
Not only not fair, but I would suggest probably illegal? Much of that corn coming into southern/central Alberta was infected with fusarium gramminearum? Under the Pest Control Act it should not have been allowed in, but was... with the encouragement of the Alberta government! To increase the profitability of a few feedlots the malting and hog industries were put at risk? How smart was that?

[parsley]

cowman,

Debating the issues of international policy fairness, who's measurement only serves to salary countless years of economists, is not why this thread was initiated, so I want to get back on track.

QUESTION Why can the present CWB policy result in the borders slamming shut to pork.or beef. or chicken.?

ANSWER Because they are all fed CHEAP Canadian off-Board grain that Americans cannot buy. That amounts to a PROHIBITION and under NAFTA, that spells trade action, by the US, and that shuts out lamb chops.

All the CWB has to do to quell the potential threat is to provide export access via licenses to all DA farmers.

Nothing complicated. Strictly business. No money. No court cases. No wrangling.

Parsley

[charliep]

1) Alberta and hog producers (who also likely grow at least some grain) are generally on side with a more open barley market which includes direct price signals from the export feed market and malt.

2) An open border which includes 2 way trade is a good thing for both industries.

3) The US is not necessarily always a fair trader and has/can take action on grain or livestock at any time. There are processes that can bring them back to reality realizing the cost in lost markets, time and money.

4) I don't think anyone (starting with me) understands the impact of the US ethanol initiatives on the corn market and the traditional user of it. It will impact how much corn the US exports (some will come to Canada for secure supplies of feed grains) and the competitiveness of their livestock industry. All these things will impact the necessity of the US keeping access to Canadian product (crops and livestock) and their competitiveness in world markets (will create opportunities for Canada).

[charliep]

Should be Alberta cattle and hog producers etc.

[wedino]

I don't think Ontario can grow enough corn for their ethanol plants(proposed plants, not sure how many plants are being built) so Michigan corn will go to Ont. to produce ethanol.

Wheat based ethanol plants in the west make a lot of sense to me.

[parsley]

charliep,

I hate to have to hound home the point....but...

All the money being spent on trade actions is coming out of pooling accounts even though NAFTA is a Government-to-Government international organization.

Governments are supposed to pay for NAFTA costs, but this CWB's B of D have eagerly continued to dip into DA to pay. "This round is our treat!".

DA farmers are just considered collateral damage.

Prevention is an educated tool.

If the CWB's directors practiced good business management, they would neuter the problem so a countervail launch is not deemed to be a legitimate action.

Parsley

[charliep]

Not disagreeing.

My issue is to get livestock producers who grow grain engaged and voting. Their opinion and vote is important in the barley plebescite.