Quebec cows?

[cakadu]

Do you think it comes down to a reluctance to change? Change is always difficult no matter who has to do the changing or why the change has come about.

Agriculture isn't immune to the changes that are happening out there - many of them so fast that it boggles the mind some days. The timelines for change are shrinking as well. When you look at a continuum, in 30 years, we saw more changes than in the past 300 years; now we see more changes in 3 years than we did at any previous time.

Emrald, your point is a good one. It takes one person to start it, but once others get involved, it gains momentum and that is how things happen.

For varied reasons, there is great reluctance to change in agriculture - we've seen it coming for years, yet we appear to want to keep it the way it was. We went from a grazing management type of scenario to the feedlot one of today. There are a growing number who are moving back to the grazing management way of doing things with positive results, less costs and more coming back to them. Swath grazing, rotational grazing, having the cows move to the feed versus taking the feed to them are all part of lowering costs.

Pandiana is right - way of life does factor into it for so many people, but that is not what pays the bills and puts food on the table. It seems that the more food production is becoming a business, the less we are capable of embracing that reality. We should be rewarding those that are willing to take risks - be it in a producer owned plant, direct marketing or what have you - because they are taking risks, often times with great rewards attached to them. Even if they don't work out as planned, at least the attempt is there.

[cakadu]

I think that the vast majority of people will talk about what is wrong, want to see changes but when it comes to taking the bull by the horns they are reluctant to do so for varying reasons. I do think that many of our younger farmers are more apt to speak out and suggest alternative ways of doing things.

[grassfarmer]

Before we all jump on the bandwagon and become revolting peasants I think we need to clear up a few points in this debate.
#1 Are you prepared to resort to strong-arm tactics against consumers for not paying enough for their food or is it only to bully more welfare payments from the Government?
#2 How would this affect trade with other countries - will you go down the road of hijacking and burning products coming in from the US for example? If so what are the implications of such action?
#3 Does the UPA or any proposed Western group with the same agenda pose a threat to transnational corporations the size and power of Cargill, Tyson or is it a case of UPA being the big fish in a small tank?
Don't get me wrong agriculture needs to change in Canada but I just don't think changing it by violence and civil disorder is the way ahead in the 21st Century.

[Bez]

Grassfarmer - your comments are to a certain extent - valid.

However, if you want a better price for your animal - then demand it. Make it happen. Block the doors to Tyson and Cargill. Watch what happens. There will be heck to pay - but, if you do nothing but talk with them - well, they will simply talk back. And the game will continue and they will win. This is exactly what THEY hope you will do.

If you do not hit them in the only place they will understand - their bank account - then you are the loser - NOT them. This scares them, because shareholders demand profits from their companies.

It is a matter of pure economics - nothing more and nothing less.

It is fine to sit down and say civil disobedience is a bad thing - but by not doing anything - it allows them to pay you what THEY want to pay.

If you have a better idea, I am all ears - but do not pull out the "negotiate with them" card. And do not pull out the "it'll get better" card. That along with the governments help will keep us in our place.

I simply use the example of the UPA. Why not write the prez and talk to him? They are far better off than any ag operator in trhe remainder of Canada.

In the end, most all of you folks will keep on with the status quo because you do not think like someone who is ready to "go down swinging". Yet.

So here is my last comment - have to go wean the babies - If you managed to block the doors for a month - do you think the other side would come to the table with the same attitude they approached the federal inquiry - or the way they treat you now - or would they come "seriously" looking to solve the problem?

You OWN the pie. Unfortunately an outside influence controls whether or not you actually get to eat it.

Bez

[Horse]

Bez I surly do congratulate you on your posts I have been saying the same thing for years but I think getting farmers together is a lot harder than hearding cats
A good example of the apathy in this country is the atatude of just wait till the border opens, since Bushs visit the coffe room talk is all the border will open in 3-5 mo and things will be just fine , all the talk of more packing plants will go away and we are back to being screwed.
Mabey I shouldnt care as I have pretty well got out of the cattle business but I still have land to do something with and after 40 yr I hate to think it was all for nothing.

I dont want ot point fingers but thier are a lot of farmers out there that make thier living out in the oil patch and use farming as a tax dodge and to build up a nice operation for thier retirement and as long as we have those people speaking for us things wont change but who has enough time to get involved besides those with the big pay cheque.

[grassfarmer]

Bez, I would be interested in your replies to my #1 and #2 questions as well if you have time.

[Bez]

Hi Grassfarmer - your questions:

Quote

#1 Are you prepared to resort to strong-arm tactics against consumers for not paying enough for their food or is it only to bully more welfare payments from the Government?
#2 How would this affect trade with other countries - will you go down the road of hijacking and burning products coming in from the US for example? If so what are the implications of such action?

end quote

#1 - I had not thought there was any strong arm tactics against the consumer. Having spent a lot of time working in Europe last year to keep the home place running, I did notice food was more expensive. But the Euro is well above the U.S. dollar. It seems to me that food prices do not run in accordance with commodity pricing - the price of food (IMO) runs on what the processor / manufacturer thinks the public purse will bear. All with the thought to maximize profit - not a bad thing - just the way it is.

If the company that buys your product is the only game in town and refuses to pay a price that will meet your production cost it leads me to believe they actually are making a serious attempt at forcing you to "work under contract for them". Control is power - they have it all at this time. Certainly like to think it will not always be so.

By working under the premise that they can control the price of the commodity and at the same time dictate the price the consumer pays - they can maximize profits while controlling both ends of the equation. Actually VERY smart business practise. Keeps the shareholder happy. Simply put - it is business.

A little like the old share cropper philosophy - make them work hard enough to produce what we need - but keep them poor enough - by making them shop at the company store - that they cannot make any real changes to their lifestyle, or make any substantial / practical improvements to their operation. As long as the producer keeps producing and just getting by then the processor wins.

So in the end, the producer could never set the price for the consumer - unless it is at farm gate. Only the processor can set the price the consumer pays.

I am not sure what you mean by strong arm tactics to gain more welfare money from the government. Are you stating that money we receive is welfare? Not trying to answer a question with a question - just do not know what you mean.

If you DO mean money to us is welfare - well I do not like accepting handouts from the various government agencies. I am sure I am not alone in this opinion. I have always said that if I / we received a fair price for what we produce, we would never have to go to the well for money.

Historically the cattleman does not go begging for money and has not done so in many years. Certainly WTO has stated we are subsidized at a very low level and could have those subsidies increased with no penalty. Granted the U.S. of A. disagrees with this, but that is probably another can of wormms we could open at a later sate.

#2 - I am under the impression that all countries that have had a similar economic situation as ours also have labour disputes and internal problems. Eventually they get solved and the world returns to normal.

I cannot see how this is going to affect trade with the U.S. or other countries. On a scale of one to ten it sure doesn't rate on the Richter Scale as compared to promoting turning off the oil and gas taps, or shutting down the lumber businesses. If anything, T & C will have to come to the table if only to keep their shareholders happy. It would not take them very long - profit is key to keeping shareholders and business partners happy.

I have not advocated "hijacking and burning products" coming in from other countries and never would. I have a sneaky suspicion you are attempting to throw a strawman at me.

If I am correct in this thought, and I truly hope I am not, then I am sorry you would attempt to trip me up. You see, I once was not one to advocate the talk I am now talking - but it has been successful in other parts of the country.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and I am tired of those who would sit back and let others go down - possibly licking their lips in the anticipation.

Forgive my comments if I am wrong in my thoughts.

This country cannot survive without imports. The rest of the question therefore does not require further input.

So - while my answers may not be to your liking - the fact is that a good business operation will maximize profits. T & C have done this. At the expense of the person who produces the one product that need to be profitable. (I know they do chicken and hogs - but I think you get my drift)

As I said before - the producer owns the pie - but the processor is the person who decides when the producer can eat that pie. Somehow that does not seem right to me.

In closing, all cattle sorted today - all calves got their final booster and moved into their new homes for the winter. Mother and son / daughter are calling to one another - loud and clear - and the symphony of mooing is loud. Music to my ears.

Hope this all comes across fairly clear - I am absolutely beat - did not proof read so I hope there are not too many typos - after midnight now - off to bed.

Bez

[cakadu]

Bez, I think you make one very important point and that is the one about people waiting for risk takers to fail. I've used the analogy before - it is like the lobsters and the pot of water. After the lobsters are all thrown in, one of them tries to climb out. Instead of helping the brave one to escape, they pull him back in and ask "where are you going?"

We are moving to an entrepreneurial mindset and more people are doing things outside of the status quo which are great strides forward. For some reason though, we hate to see someone else succeed where we maybe have failed or been too afraid to try. Maybe one day we will get to the stage where we are risk takers instead of risk averse.

It would be such a shame to have the border open and we take a step backward in terms of building more Canadian packing capacity and finding new markets. I know that a few have worked very hard to accomplish those goals and they are to be commended for their ongoing efforts.

[JD4ME]

I did a little checking and in Alberta the counterpart to the UPA is called Wild Rose Agricultural Producers.I called one of the directors tonight and he said that Alberta farmers aren't even willing to support this group well enough through buying memberships so that they can sit as full members of the canadian federation of agriculture with the other provincial farm organizations like UPA though that may be changing. He said they don't qualify as a single commodity organization for a Prov. checkoff as they represent a wide range of AG. Policy. He was well aware of what the UPA can do and said they actually take a tax on farm income in Quebec and are hugely well funded and powerful both in Quebec but also Ottawa. He said in Alberta we like to get all divided up into our own little group and that way nobody can generate any momentum on issues also said things are looked at very European in Quebec and thats a whole different mindset than what we have here. But he said they know how to play the political game and lobby hugely effectively. He emtioned the head of the UPA was coming to their convention in early January to speak I thought it might be interesting especially after this.

[ivbinconned]

Great posts Bez; as many of you know I have posted much information in the past year about the inequities of treatment regarding the different regions of this country. And especally Quebec.
Some have suggested in response that they are not motivated by money...insinuateing that this is what motivates me!
More accuratly, I AM motivated by poverty. And I am motivated by injustice.

In regards the present topic
here again are 3 articals from a Quebec paper (sorry for the computor translation), notice the comments about "regionalization" and also the comment of cows entering Quebec from another province???
Where there is a plan, there is always a scam! All things made possible by Alberta apathy!
-----------------------------------
Cows pass the stopping
December 2, 2004


Seven trucks trailers loaded with cull cows coming from another province entered Quebec this morning to the Colbex slaughter-house of Saint-Cyrille de Wendover.

Two other loadings, this time of cows carrying the tags of identification of Quebec and bought at the cost of 42 hundreds delivers it, also crossed the blockade raised by 200 agricultural producers since Tuesday morning.

It seems besides that the passage of these trucks trailers, obtained within the framework of the negotiations around the sale of the slaughter-house, caused a certain brew-comrade on the barricades. According to information's obtained by the Earth, the producers occupied to maintain the blockade wondered about the decision to let pass these trucks.

With regard to the purchase of the slaughter-house by the producers of bovines of Quebec, the negotiations went well this midday in an exchange of proposal and counter-proposal.

-------------------------------------
The federal minister makes false jump
December 2, 2004

The federal Minister for Agriculture, Andy Mitchell, decides not to present himself in front of the delegates of the Union of the agricultural producers.

Calling upon an emergency debate in the commons, caused by the tabling of a motion of the Québécois Block this morning, the federal Minister for Agriculture cancelled his presence in Quebec. He was awaited before the assembly of delegated Union of the agricultural producers, assembled in congress since last Tuesday.

Its gesture was described of “coward” and “chicken” by the chief bloquist Gilles Duceppe. Motion deposited this morning by the Block asks for specific measurements of assistance for the producers struck by the embargo ox.

Gilles Duceppe also asked for the regionalization of the system of inspection of food. In interview with the Network of Information, the spokesman of the Québécois Block as regards agriculture, Denise Pear tree-Rivard increased by specifying that Quebec had very good tools of inspection and trace ability making possible such a system.

Last year, the Minister for the time, Lyle Vanclief, had not gone either to Quebec to deliver the traditional speech to it in front of the delegates of the Union of the agricultural producers.
---------------------------------------

42 hundreds of the governments
December 2, 2004


The blockade at the slaughter-house of Saint-Cyrille-of-Wendover is raised. The stockbreeders will obtain 42 hundreds delivers it for the cull cow, but the money will come partly from the government.

The Minister for Agriculture, Francoise Gauthier, presented himself in front of a crammed room of agricultural producers from all the areas of Quebec at the time of the 80e congress of the Union of the agricultural producers (UPA).

It made a head of burial besides when producers presented a coffin to him in which they symbolically placed various objects representing the challenges of Québécois agriculture. They wished to show that agriculture is seriously sick. “If you do not do anything, the lid will be closed again on agriculture”, one explained him.

The producers of bovines slag and butchery of Quebec set out again mitigated room. They will obtain 42 hundreds indeed delivers it for their animals sold as from November 29, but the government will have to open its brackets. The money will come partly from the slaughter-houses and the State will compensate for the difference. The stockbreeders would have rather wished to rather withdraw the money of the sale of their animals than “to be shown” to receive the “charity of the governments”.

An agreement of partnership was in addition signed between the UPA and the owners of the Colbex slaughter-house of Saint-Cyrille-of-Wendover. The details of the agreement were not made public. The workshops of cutting of the meat are also included/understood in the sale. The UPA will be majority shareholder and the current owners would operate the installations.

With regard to the clusters of the manure to the fields, the minister known as to have obtained the insurance of his/her colleague of the Environment, Thomas Mulcair, that the practice could continues beyond October 1, 2005. It specified that the authorization will be henceforth related to the site of breeding rather than to the company.

Lastly, as regards the refunding of the municipal taxes, the minister hammered that the advertisement of the 11 M$ made at the beginning of week, was a provisional measure and that a committee was going to continue its work to find a solution durable. Its remarks hardly convinced the delegates and the producers present.

[Bez]

ivbinconned

Is there a problem in being motivated by money?

If that is the case then there should be a problem with all of us. Without money, there is no economy and we all lose our homes - witness my neighbour being taken down by the banks last week.

If someone states money motivation is a bad thing, then let them open their wallet and bank account - perhaps they could help me out. The only reason one operator is still going - less than 5 miles from here is - as he told me - AN angel called him from town and offered him some cash - just when he needed it.
One hell of an angel I would say!

We went into an expansion mode - 2 years prior to BSE. After many weeks of consulting lawyers, accountants and producing an outstanding business plan we started. All the agencies were happily on board.

One week prior to BSE we had a meeting with all to review our progress and were congratulated on our progress by all in attendance. We were about 6 months ahead of the forecasted progress.

Well, it is a different story now - and believe me all of the folks who were on our side then have been singing a different tune.

We were not given this land. We were not given any machinery. We were not given a single dollar. The first year we actually manhandled our round bales to feed the cattle - truck and quad were our mainstays. That allowed us the chance to save a few bucks in principal AND interest.

We are not a huge operation, but we are feeding about 100 head as I write.

My family did not put anything into our business. My friends did not put anything into our business.

This place is built from the ground up by myself and my wife and my two daughters. So those who chat about money motivation - let them explain how they got to their position. If they are second, third and fourth generation operations - good for them. But never let them cast dispersions on those who started from nothing. Or those who are hurting - even when they took all of the necessary precautions.

Up at five this morning to load 600 bales of straw we sold to a neighbour - home to do three hours of chores - waiting for water to top in in one of the temporary weaning pens. Then off to the off farm job to keep this place running. Wife left for her job running a poultry operation at 0700.

I guess I am motivated by money.

In my opinion that is not a bad thing.

Bez

[ivbinconned]

Well said! I too have been under financial threat for most of my 35 years on the farm...no oil wells here.

BSE may well bring on the unraveling of my operation!!

With in 10 miles of our place 31 quarters of land belonging to 5 different parties has changed hands through forcloseure in the past 10 years. I make no apology for my motavation.

With your help maybe we can continue to bring to light how farm politics is played in this CON-federation.

[grassfarmer]

Bez,
I don't know what the term "throwing a strawman at you" means but believe me I am not trying to trip you up. I have worked with a group of people all summer that backed various campaigns and organisations to resolve the current beef crisis - I do not believe the status quo is good enough. We have been fighting apathy from beef producers all the way - I sometimes wonder what % of farmers here are actually farming as opposed to living in the country surrounded by a few critters. And that is not targetted at oil workers and acreage owners it is targetted at the guys owning 100 cow herds and knowing nothing about the problems the industry currently faces.
My questions to you were shaped by my experiences in Europe - on one hand I supported fellow UK farmers during the BSE crisis there when we impeded the free flow of imported beef from Eire because the retailers were importing it specifically to hold the market price down that we got for our produce. This involved non-violent blockading of ports and also supermarkets designed to gain media attention and to inform consumers of the situation. This was a well organised campaign in which no-one was arrested or injured.
My other experience was being on the receiving end of mob rule - we sold lambs railgrade to a local company that exported to France mainly. Year after year French producers organised blockades where they beat up the truck drivers, burnt vehicles and destroyed produce - all highly illegal but allowed to happen by the French police.
I think we do need to take action, prairie farmers have fallen into a slumber again now that the Fall run is over, and they seem prepared to hope that next year things will improve "when the border opens". We do need to get media attention back to the beef crisis which is not going away - blockading a plant may be one way to do it but I want it to be clearly defined what our objectives are before we start out.
Mine would be that our aim is to receive fair payment for our produce FROM THE MARKETPLACE - I would not support a movement to get more compensation from the Government that did not address the underlying problems of transnational corporations monopolisatian of N.American agriculture.
I would not support an organisation that used physical violence, intimidation or illegal activities to further our aims.
I still doubt such a movement would achieve much - prairie farmers have been either too apathetic or not hurting badly enough to lift a finger to help themselves thus far so why should that change at this late stage? I still believe we need to try something and peaceful blockading of a Cargill, IBP or XL plant may be the way.

[ivbinconned]

"Mine would be that our aim is to receive fair payment for our produce FROM THE MARKETPLACE"

Mine too, but not very realistic in light of history and the facts. One of the biggest detriments to Western Canadian agriculture is the voices from the west that Ottawa loves to hear, and has heard, that say, "our aim is to receive fair payment for our produce FROM THE MARKETPLACE".

Ottawa happily obliges!!
OTTAWA HAPPILY CONCURS!!

Not since the time of kings has there ever been a "free" market place in food production and so to let ones ideology dictate and not face the reality that every one around the world, INCLUDING Ottawa inregards to Quebec, is doing it. We are asking for the rope to hang yourself!

With hardly a dime left, or the energy to build a packing plant!

[ivbinconned]

Bez, is the packing plant in the following artical Canadian owned?

---------------------------------------
“There is a limit to be made fly” - Laurent Pellerin

Pierre-Yvon Bégin, Earth of on our premises December 2, 2004


QUEBEC – Monday morning, the cull cows were back before the Parliament of Quebec.

This time, the agricultural producers of Quebec held an symbolic auction to mark well the establishment of a bottom price to 42 cents a pound.

“There is a limit to be made fly”, declared the president of the Union of the agricultural producers of Quebec, Laurent Pellerin. This one repeated that more only one cow from now on will not be sold in bottom of the bottom price of 42 hundreds, inviting the government of Quebec required “an answer” before the end of the 80e general congress which is held in the capital this week.

“It is not true that one will let enter the animals of the other provinces”, retorted the president with the journalists, meaning the will of the producers to prevent the delivery of animals at the Colbex slaughter-house. Illegal gesture? “It is illegal to be made fly like that”, rétorqué Laurent Pellerin, specifying that the Levinoff Meats, owner of the slaughter-house, had multiplied by three their evaluated annual profits with 10 M$ before the crisis.

“They is scandalous”, added Laurent Pellerin, grateful that the company had offered to pay 25 hundreds delivers it during the last weekend.