Test ABP resolution Re supply management Test

Beef Production

Tools

ABP resolution Re supply management

Test
Dec 13, 2011 | 11:34 1 “Be it resolved that ABP and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, working with the appropriate partners, actively lobby both the provincial and federal governments to develop and implement a plan to remove the trade barriers experienced by the beef industry, and the majority of agriculture as a result of Canada’s Supply Management policy.”
Zone 1, 3

Carried Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 11:42 2 Once again, Alberta puts it to the rest of the country.

Sorry guys, but it's true. Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 11:45 3 Not Alberta Kato, the ABP - not everyone in Alberta thinks like the ABP. Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 13:59 4 That's good to hear.

I just don't see the logic of this. I would think that having to deal with the all to frequent dairy cow culls like those that take place in the U.S. would do so much more damage to us than any theoretical good that would be done by opening markets that are supposedly closed to us because of supply management.

These are currently theoretical markets. It hasn't been proven that they would open. IMHO supply management is just used as an excuse which will be replaced by another excuse if we throw it out.

Every time the American dairy industry crashes, and it happens all too often, they dump several million cull cows onto the hamburger market. That hurts every beef producer who has a cull cow to sell.

It even hurts us. Why we would want to set it up so the same culls happen here defies logic. Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 14:18 5 A large part of the value in the quota
system is stationed in PQ. I suspect
after tossing the bone to the West of
eliminating the long gun registry, that
they will be a bit loath to tackle the
PQ farm rally.
I am not convinced that the supply
management issue really affects our
ability to market beef a whole bunch.
Are there a lot of folks out there
itching to send beef to a country that
won't accept it at the moment because of
supply management?
I think over time, it will go the way of
the CWB, but not in this election cycle. Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 17:12 6 Supply management is always portrayed as a mainly Quebec/Ontario thing but how true is that? I've read that Hutterite colonies supply 33% of Alberta's milk and 10% of Canadas. That seems a lot yet in the dairy areas close to me - Rimbey, Ponoka, Lacombe the Hutterite dairies must be outnumbered at least 10 to 1 by non-Hutterites primarily of Dutch and Swiss origin. I bet the average dairy size in western Canada is way larger too.

Sean "Are there a lot of folks out there itching to send beef to a country that won't accept it at the moment because of supply management?"
No - because no-one can name a country that has indicated they would start buying, or buy more, Canadian beef if it wasn't for SM.
Another case where the hollow ideology of "free markets" has been repeated for so long people believe it.
There is no good reason to throw the supply management sectors advantages away - Canadian dairy farmers are the envy of the world. Maybe people should think about why before campaigning against them. Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 18:11 7 We've got much bigger things to campaign against without doing it against fellow cattle producers. Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 19:00 8 I guess this is back to my favorite definition of a "liberal" as one who is so broad minded that they won't take their own side in an argument.

Canada's position at WTO negotiations is compromised by our "no trade" supply managed sectors. ABP's mandate is to advocate for the beef industry. Ergo they are opposed to supply management because it negatively affects our trade opportunities. Very logical and consistent. What isn't logical and consistent is beef producers siding with supply management. The benefits of same accrue only to producers in the affected sectors. HT Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 20:33 9 happytrails, it probably hasn't occurred to you yet that those who have a little broader vision and mind can be as conservative a thinker as they come.

In fact, those who are hampered by myopia or tunnel vision seldom have the ability of seeing things as they are.

Therefore, I'm thinking that you benefit from being told that you just very likely P.O.'d a very solid conservative thinker with your blindly-thrown charge of "liberal" in this case.

It could be that you didn't read some of the very accurate posts on this thread and are simply doing the usual knee-jerk reaction to the trigger-phrase "supply management" in the title.

You come across whining like the city folks who see titles like this and immediately think only of how this must be hurting them somehow.

But go ahead, ignore all the facts and spout off some juvenile gibberish about your imaginary losses being the result of someone else is doing better than you are.

It is called jealousy, I believe. Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 20:48 10 Don"t really think that supply management is in the minds of many of the 7 plus million in the little city I am hangin out in today. Most would just love to have a little chuink of some truly Canadian beef, me thinks.

Just flew in to Fujou from Shanghai last night and boy are my arms tied ---- badaboom.

Actually well rested after a couple of local beers and some street meat before a solid sleep on a solid bed last night.

First meeting set for 2 this afternoon with some of the folks that make things happen over here.

Gotta love this Internet thing.

I will check in with ya'all later... Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 21:06 11 Well Randall, it sure didn't take long for you to develop an accent . . . Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 21:12 12 As long as ABP is collecting levy off every dairy calf, replacement heifer or cull cow produced in that sector I would think they have a duty to represent dairy producers rather than stab them in the back.
"No taxation without representation" and all that. Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 21:45 13 Supply management and access for EU dairy products into Canada is a big part of the CETA negotiations. Is Supply Management a hindrance? - you bet 100% it is. The future of our plant in Lacombe is highly dependent upon being able to kill and process cattle for the EU market... so to is our brand. If we were dependent upon a domestic bee market I doubt we woudl be here very long. I am sick an tried of supply management guys talking about the future of their mega sized family farms... did you know that all the turkeys supplied and killed for the Ontario market come from 5 "family farms" What about negotiations with hte Asia Pacific PAC.. Sorry Kato and Grass Farmer but I don't know why you guys are so defensive for the spoiled brats! Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 22:30 14 The problem with CETA is it's another very poor deal from Canada's point of view. Potentially give up a lot but gain nothing. It has been made clear that there will be no change in the EUs stance on hormone treated beef so no change there for the bulk of the exporting industry here. Same on the crop side - the EU will not drop their regulations banning import of GM crops. Is your branded hormone free beef under threat of being shut out of the EU because of the supply management sector? Is that spelled out in CETA?
As for the Asia Pacific club that's just New Zealand throwing their weight about on the dairy issue as they like to do. Tell them we'll drop supply managed dairy in return for NZ winters! Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 22:47 15 Grassframer some times its nice being able to sell beef into markets where the big boys can't / don't want to go... ie no hormones to Europe... especially when you have higher cost in small packing plants and you want to differentiate your product so that you can recuperate your costs. If you last checked there are only 2 packers bidding on cattle in western Canada... is there something wrong with having market opportunities for others to grow their business... somehow it is fine to have supply management hinder trade deals? No one saying eliminate it but certainly its time it starts getting eased back. Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 22:49 16 First of all, give her hell Randy. You know they want it, they know they want it, so best luck getting it there.

Regarding b's comments I hope you are in supply management because otherwise you don't make any sense.

And gf the dairy industry only pays an ABP check off to market a by-product which becomes beef. ABP can't be expected to serve 2 masters (meat and milk). ABP's loyalty has to be to beef if a policy favors 1 over the other.

General comment on supply management.

It is GOOD for:

1. Producers who own quota.

It is BAD for:

1. People who would like to become producers (quota cost).
2. Consumers who must pay higher prices for affected products.

Don't have any credible data relating to the numbers of people in the good for/bad for categories. Suffice it to say that supply management is bad for a lot more people than it is good for. HT Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2011 | 23:44 17 gaucho, Nothing wrong with folks wanting to break the packer monopoly on this continent and export offshore but you can do that now - you are doing that now - into Europe with supply management intact. Are your customers telling you their countries would allow more Canadian beef in if we did away with supply management? That's what I'm waiting for - until we hear that I don't think we should even be talking about throwing away a perfectly good system.
Maybe when we are talking about levelling the playing field with the EU someone should mention the Single Farm Payments their farmers receive? A farm with 150 beef cows still gets handed a cheque by their Government to the tune of @$75,000 every year.
How about ABP push to level the playing field in that regard? I'm sure you could make the case Canada could compete better in the EU beef market if they weren't getting that level of support? But we're not that smart - easier to beat up fellow Canadian farmers than go after the people whose market we are actually trying to sell into. Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 00:38 18 This is a touchy one. Other than cost to get into the business, it really does work, however, as it becomes more expensive to start, it seems the only ones able to afford the quota, are ones already in it.
Perhaps, with the stability of income, there should be a limit on size, guaranteeing newcomers a chance at the market. Currently, you almost have to be born into a family of dairy farmers or come with large sums of money. I like the system that allows a family to flourish and have a projectable future, however it has turned into an "elite" system very much limiting newcomers.
As for limits to enter other countries, let’s do what is best for our country first, not because of any specific interest groups. Getting seriously tired of the "do this and they may do that" mentality......just have the best damn product and make them want it. Usually any barriers are due to some other reason anyway. Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 07:36 19 HT your logic is flawed.

While supply management is good for people who own quota, it is also the reason that quota is expensive and hence the barrier to new start-ups. The perfect example of a supply and demand system at work.

Further, consumers who know anything about the effects of bovine growth hormone prefer to pay the extra costs. ask Cristoff why his European customers are willing to pay a premium for Canadian beef. The answer is quality. Please don't be in such a rush to allow my kids to be poisoned by foreign dairy products. Bad enough we cannot eat shrimp any more.

Seems I have been hearing arguments that we need to have all imported beef meet Canadian standards from the other side of some mouths on this one. Kids drink a lot of milk. Think about it.

Would you prefer that dairy farmers have to have an off-farm job just to feed their habit so that you could all be in the same boat together? Sort of a misery loves company thing.

Until a detailed wok-up has been done on the actual (not theoretical) benefits and losses of getting rid of supply management I vote for the safety of your kids and mine.

We should all be pulling together to bring all Canadian cattle producers up to the economic security level of dairy producers, not the other way around. Why doesn't the ABP call for Alberta to adopt the Quebec model instead?

semper ad meliora Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 08:49 20 GF - I agree that there is a lot of
quota in the west (Rimbey, north of
Saskatoon, etc.) however as a proportion
of agriculture in PQ it is important
within PQ and the ag sector is very
vocal there. There are quite a few PQ
ridings and most majority governments
depend on getting a few of those.
I think that Canadian Dairies can
compete, even without the SM system,
however there will be a huge learning
curve and a lot of casualties along the
way. As I said before, I don't doubt it
is on the block, but it won't go in this
election cycle. Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 09:01 21 GF... yes we ship right now under the 0 tariff rate quota... however under that system there are multiple companies in the EU that speculate and buy quota and then the legitimate importers have to buy that quota from the speculators, because there is not enough to go around ... thereby the 0 tariff is acting like Hilton quota... Secondly the quota which started out as a deal to compensate for the ban on hormone treated beef from the US now has Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay and soon to be Argentina and Brazil that will be able to deliver against it.... so there is less and less to go around Then there is talk that the quota will be based on a 1st come 1st serve basis ... so there may be time so the year no quota woudl be available. Finally under 0 tariff rate quota cattle must be on feed for a minimum of 120 days high energy to qualify even they may not need it... needles not very sustainable in a market where grain will continue to rise. Needless to say a bilateral trade deal for say 10000 tons from Canada a year at minimum would represent 75000 head of cattle per year... a legitimate market and enough kill to make plant like CPM stay quite viable. How many farms would that represent GF? Needless to say enough is enough with Supply Management dictating the negotiations. Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 09:05 22 Happy Trails, by your logic:
General comment on high cattle prices.

It is GOOD for:

1. Producers who have cattle to sell.

It is BAD for:

1. People who would like to buy cattle.
2. Consumers who must pay higher prices for affected products.

See - it's all the free market at work, but lets call on the Government to curtail high cattle prices. Maybe change the system so there is easy access for cheaper, lower quality imported cattle that'll really help the industry here be "competitive". Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 09:19 23 Quit it, gf, you're gonna make their heads explode! Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 10:26 24 There's an elephant in the room that's being forgotten here. And that's the lowly chicken. If beef supply management was turfed out, the poultry would be as well.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think we need half priced chicken to compete against for in the consumer grocery budget. Just as the milk boards keep the dairy cow numbers steady, the poultry boards keep the chicken from the boom and bust cycle as well.

There's nothing that makes a juicy steak look like it's too expensive to buy like a sub dollar a pound chicken sitting in the next display case.

Another thing to think about is the tendency of governments to allot a certain amount of funding to agriculture. This means the risk management programs that cattle, hog, and grain farmers all too often have to call on. As of now, the supply managed commodities do not access agristability. If they were thrown to the wind, they'd be at the mercy of the same ups and downs of the market that the rest of us are, and they'd be sharing in that same fixed amount of funding. aka... less to go around, because we'd all have to share whatever funding there was.

As for quota keeping people out of the business, I don't know if an open market with it's uncertainty would make it any easier. How many banks would lend money to a startup dairy? The facilities and equipment alone are in a class that a few fences and some beef cows don't even come close to. And we all know how easy it is for a beginning beef producer to get adequate funding, don't we? What if you added a few hundred thousand for a milking parlour and all the other necessities? And with no guarantee of a profit at the other end?

These are just a few of the consequences of dropping supply management that need to be considered. Trade access is only one of many. Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 11:25 25 perfecho, rather than limiting the size of existing dairies, there is another option. In Manitoba the egg producers have good system. When demand increases, rather than allot new quota to existing producers, they hold a lottery. Anyone who wants to get into the business enters their names, and the new quota is given away. This year it allowed three new producers to enter without having to purchase quota. It's simple, but effective. Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 13:16 26 Kato, not sure of the answer, and there are probably many parts of a solution. But I do know we are losing small producers that are viable operations due to the high sale value of quota, although I do see value in the quota system. In our area, many of the dairies are moving to 300 plus cows. We have a dairy in our neighbourhood that every animal is in a barn all times of the year....not a fence on the place...looks gorgeous, however is this the way we were meant to raise animals?
Food production, in my little mind, should be more of an ethical philosophy than a dollars and cents issue...God gave us a great food source however we continually find ways of screwing it up! Mass production, mass processing and mass distribution is killing us...literally as well socially.
The bottom line is food is too cheap! When we throw out 30% and it only costs us 10% of our income to start with, there is a problem. Food and food quality should be valued; it is the basis of our being and should not be supplied by the lowest bidder. (Melamine is cheap)
I best stop my soap box speech now, but there are more important things than lowest cost....reliable supply which includes multiple producers, shorter supply routes, jobs kept in the community. Our system is getting very pretentious with its global focus, and I believe there a day we are going to wish we had done things differently. Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 15:09 27 Seems to me that hitting one group to benefit another is typical North American economics. That being said, ther are some decent arguements for both sides here.

From a total beef perspective however, we are once again focusing on E.U beef marketing to support removal of SM and I don't believe that remnoving SM would be the last way that the E.U. would try to protect it's position. Might sound good that they have given us a number like 75000 head, and that would help a fair number of producers if their value chain was geared for profit back to producer. I think that the E.U. quota system for beef will change no matter what and quality and branding (esepcially using the Canadian flag) will keep Canadian companies in the E.U. game.

Do we have to push the S.M. button to remove beef at a premium price from our country though? I think not.

First meetings in China support the enthusiasm of ALMA officials as well as everyone else who has been here and seen the opportunity. My God what a country. And wherever they are getting the money to do the things they do;I don't know and don't care.

Once the officials that we met heard us say that we were not here to dump cheap beef into their country and were realy after the (still) literally millions who can't quite afford Kobe but would love to have a quality "Canadian" choice,we were off to the races.

Visited a duty free port area with buildings available to set up a fab plant and start importing carcasses for our low labor cost friends to cut up the way they prefer. Would not even need the duty free deal if the boneless rule was not in place.
And just like the E.U.,the rules "will" change. Just like every trade deal however, if you don"t actually ask and have the ability to live up to what you want to do, talk is cheap. Sending Ritz or any other government or ABP/CCA official over here to China to negotiate change is like saying that another big company will dive into the E.U. unabated when the quota rules change there.Besides, the E.U thing is as much about the big boys conserving their captive North American supply of beef cattle as anything else in my mind.

Just wish I could speak the language better as it seems to take that second meeting with a number of beers and some real weird fish food to get my point across clearly.

semper ad meliora back atcha Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 15:12 28 Sorry boys and girls,and burnt,can't find the spell check on this mostly chinese tool bar...LOL Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 17:19 29 Don't worry, your spelling is good.

You'll have to find a way to post some pictures when you get back. What an amazing trip to take! I'd be careful about that "street meat" though. ;-) Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011 | 21:09 30 I have word of an interesting suggestion doing the rounds in progressive dairy circles. To meet rising consumer demand for raw milk and also make entry into the dairy sector easier for new entrants a proposal is being floated that would allow someone to start up a dairy for up to 10 cows, without need for quota, with the milker being able to sell the milk direct to consumers. Now this would be regulated - the facilities would be inspected for cleanliness just like regular dairy operations so it would help make raw milk safer than it is today in it's illegal, underground existance. Ten cows doesn't sound like much but I've heard raw milk is in demand at $2.50/litre from consumers - even 5000 litres per cow at $2.50 = $1250 per cow so 10 cows might be $125,000 output!
The intent is that a producer could start this way but at the point they want to go over 10 cows they would need to buy quota like other dairy farmers.
I think this is a brilliant solution - it would probably increase overall milk consumption too but the toughest sell would be getting Government to change the regulation on selling raw milk. Reply With Quote