One Size Does NOT Fit All

[cakadu]

I am all for a variety of production systems - they all have a place in our global economy. We subscribe to sustainable agriculture and have been direct marketing for almost 15 years - long before it was more mainstream. We're also huge proponents of local/regional cuisine and Slow Food.

We also raise sheep, which in Alberta, is somewhat outside of the mainstream cattle. For many years, we have watched as the sheep industry has tried to "catch up" to the cattle industry with ear tagging and now there is a pilot project to test RFID tags for sheep.

The latest is that our check-off fees are going up by 50% come January 1st - voted IN by producers. If cattle people figure they aren't getting much for their check-off dollars, try being in the sheep industry. The move to higher fees is to, apparently, enable a more steady income to the folks that run things.

When we get hit with costs like this, it is harder for us to pass these costs on to our customers. We have a much smaller carcass to begin with and there are far less lamb eaters out there than there are beef eaters, even if you include other countries/ethnic groups who have lamb as more of a staple.

The long and the short of it is all producers cannot be treated the same - just like pantyhose, there is no such thing as one size fits all. Yes, all the increased traceback etc. is due to exporting, but not all of us export, nor do we ever want to.

Direct marketers have an easier time when it comes to traceback as it goes from the farm to the processor to the customer and we KNOW exactly who our customers are. It is very frustrating to hear that we need to nuture entrepreneurship, diversity and sustainability and yet regulations create the biggest hurdles to attaining those goals.

We have to quit treating everyone the same because we aren't all the same. Some of us don't ever want to be in the big time, so we shouldn't be expected to operate as if we are.

[DogPatch]

Good Day......

As a sheep producers from outside of Alberta, we look at your Alberta Wool and Lamb Commission and admire all the things that they do seem to be able to provide producers in Alberta. In an article published earlier in the Western Producer, it said that they hadn't had a change in the check off since the early 1980's. We all know what has happened to costs of everything.

RFID tags are suppose to be for the traceability in the event of problem diseases like FMD etc. While I will agree that many export markets require this traceability feature for sales contracts its still something that I am afraid has to be addressed. I have read that for the US border to be open for the export of Canadian sheep and lambs (as easily as before 2003) then we need to establish a proper traceability program. The RFID tags are likely the cheapest way to do this. Forget the pink clip tag, thats far too much work to follow manually.

Apparently CSF has recommended that Canada adopt the RFID tags for lambs leaving the farm of origin, however they want the costs to reflect the higher numbers of lambs / animal unit equivalent (5 ewes : 1 cow) when RFID is priced out. More information about this will be coming out soon in their Newsletters.

The RFID tags of the future will also be useable as a management tool by the producer, IF they choose to embrace the technology that goes with it. One day, and we have been told this with our cattle tags that we should be able to access carcass data even if we sell to a feedlot rather than a slaughter plant. We can always hope that this will happen.

[cakadu]

Dog Patch - I don't have a problem with any of that. The exception is that I don't sell to feedlots or to slaughter plants directly and I collect my own information.

In my opinion they haven't warranted an increase in the checkoff because they haven't done enough -- I've heard the same things said about ABP and the checkoff. Producers earlier voted down a $1.30 checkoff, so it would be interesting to find out how a $1.50 got voted in by producers.

The availability of data has always been there - it's a matter of sharing that data, which the processing companies have not been willing to do. I'm not sure that a tag is going to change the desire to share data. It's my understanding that producers have been asking for information for years, to no avail.

At the rate sheep producers are disappearing, we may not have to worry about an export market. Like everything else dependent on an export market, our high dollar is having an effect on that as well.

I'm not for a moment advocating that we don't have proper food safety and traceability in our system. What I am saying is that one size doesn't fit all.

If they are going to collect that checkoff from all producers, then they have to help all producers with that money and not just those that deal in a commercial/commodity market.

[DogPatch]

We seem to alway be aware of what it costs us (checkoffs) but we never take the time to think about what a united voice of sheep producers does. The $100 buck or whatever it cost us (personally) every year wouldn't go very far if I had to call and lobby or run a program as an individual. I get my dollars back time and time again, if I choose to participate in the work that is done by our provincial and national associations.

I know personally that a lot of time is spent by provincial directors that will never be compensated for. Most of them are quite willing to participate and contribute for the benefit of the whole industy, rather than sitting back and complaining. If you are direct marketing (so are we) don't you use the literature and directories that are available to you to help promote your products? We sure do, and its a good resourse to take advantage of.

[cakadu]

If it was just $100 per year in a checkoff I likely wouldn't be saying anything - but it costs us a lot more than that. We run at least 800 sheep here, so it isn't a small operation.

Yes, we have used some of the literature, but not to any great extent because it is geared toward commercial production and not necessarily the farm direct process. We've spent a lot of resources developing our own materials.

Like anything, there are directors that work for the benefit of all and the hours are never compensated for. Remember Dog Patch that the grass is sometimes greener on the other side of the fence and not everything is as it seems. Apathy is fairly prevalent even in the sheep world.

As direct marketers, we have had to deal with the naysayers - even within the various sheep organizations - that we are doing it all wrong and we can't be making any money and we are just "niche" players. How can I feel that my checkoff dollars are being used for my benefit when that is the attitude that we have had to deal with?

We have been doing sire tests forever here in the province, so at some stage we have to put that knowledge to good use. The research uses the same breeds over and over - not much use if you aren't raising those particular breeds.

For all types of agriculture to work, there has to be varying degrees of regulation. Our current system of doing things is not sustainable.

[WoolyBear]

I noticed in your post that a lot of producers are leaving the sheep industry. You claim is because of over regulation, and the provincial checkoffs. I would like have to say otherwise. Many of the older producers are getting out while the price of ewes are reasonable. Younger producers would rather work on the rigs, than look after sheep and lambs, and others are getting out because they no longer wish to juggle off farm jobs and lambing. Those that are staying in are expanding. Many of those will want to do things are best they can and thus will need the numbers.

There is nothing wrong with being called a niche marketer, I would consider that a compliment as you are willing and able to "think outside the box". Frankly I am beginning to hate that phrase.

Many association will never be able to please everyone all the time, I guess that is why we need to participate any which way we can.

[cakadu]

In actuality, I didn't give a specific reason for leaving the sheep industry as many of the reasons are the same other producers are exiting i.e. retirement, succession issues, better money can be made elsewhere and the list goes on.

Bigger isn't necessarily better, economies of scale go down the bigger you get and at some point there is diminishing returns. The trick isn't to work harder - it's smarter. Making yourself a commodity isn't necessarily working smarter.

We always tend towards a commodity mentality and unless you are willing to conform to that model, you fall outside of the cracks.

I prefer not to think of us as niche marketers, rather we are growing what we can sell, not selling what we grow. We are providing our customers what they want and are willing to pay us a reasonable amount for.

Sending whole live lambs across the border is not putting more money into producers pockets. Being able to grow bigger lambs that we send across the border is not putting more money into producers pockets. Exporting sheep embryos that only a handful of producers own is not helping all producers. Changing consumer tastes, particularly in prime beef country is the most expensive thing that can be done.

What about working towards keeping cheap imports out? One of our biggest challenges in the sheep industry is the importation of lamb from countries that can produce it for a fraction of what we can. As far as I know, there are no tarrifs on lamb - how do we compete with that?

Agreed Wooly Bear that an organization isn't going to please everyone all of the time, but in some respects the sheep organizations aren't much different than many other organizations.

God bless those that spend their time working for the sheep industry. Some of us would likely spend more time on it if we were taken seriously. I've read time and again on the various threads about how difficult it is to get candidates into the ABP, for example. It can be that hard in the sheep organizations as well. Sad, but true.