Since the Email list for ABP delegates is not public information, I would like to ask anyone willing to forward this message to any and all ABP delegates before next weeks meeting. If our elected delegates were to read this document and act on it at the AGM, action could not be denied. By the way - the first sentence of Cam's letter has been adjusted to say three meetings including the one in Breton where grassfarmer and I moved two similar motions, and had them passed unanimously as well.
To ABP Delegates and Directors Nov. 26 - 2006
Hello Folks:
At two fall election meetings, Strathmore and Okotoks, I was successful in having two resolutions passed. One was for changes to OTM grading in order for producers to realize price discovery based on carcass quality, the other dealing with the thorny issue of BSE testing for export market re-entry. The resolution pertaining to voluntary testing is asking ABP to push the federal govt to finally officially ask foreign markets we court, on a govt to govt basis, if they would guarantee entry within their borders of Cdn beef product, on the basis of fair trade practices, if we tested it to their specifications. That question has never been officially posed to any of our potential offshore markets.
Since it is nearly impossible for producers to speak at the AGM in defense of our resolutions, I'm hoping you will read this article and give it your consideration, as once again, the success of producers resolutions moving past the AGM is in your hands and will be decided in about as much time as is required to count the show of hands.
While attending the annual supper meeting of our local feeder association last week, we listened to Doug Price as the quest speaker, describing Rancher's Beef's accomplishments and obstacles. He clearly indicated their belief that voluntary testing would no doubt open doors in foreign markets. I felt like we were attending a Beef Initiative Group meeting listening to him. All of the reasons he gave for building the Rancher's Beef plant were exactly what BIG has promoted for close to three years now. The only difference was the number of producers we envisioned participating in the concept. We intended only to offer producers an alternative to the status quo in marketing their production, one that automatically included them in the post processing value chain and for the first time in Cdn beef industry history allowed them control of their production from birth to the wholesaling of the beef derived from their labor. The success of the initiative depends hugely on our obtaining the right to voluntarily BSE test to the customers specifications. So far, discussion of that subject has been completely denied because the US packer and hence the USDA have been thus far successful in banning it. Beef Information Centre publicly boast's that the reason they've been successful in increasing OTM slaughter is the fact that they've increased carcass value to the processors. That's likely a feeling of great accomplishment if your name is Glen Brand. How does it feel as a producer to know that once again he or she will carry the economic burden of the cull cow situation by creating a niche for packers to source their cows at the Cdn captive market price of lately two bits a pound? After slaughter a huge number of those carcasses, now the property of the packer, are graded and fed to Cdn consumers as expensive primal cuts, thereby offering the packer the niche to continue lifting profit from producers pockets. Last year we're told that over one hundred and ninety thousand cows were graded in the west, virtually none in the east. Since the Levinoff plant in Quebec is producer owned, there's no need to grade as all profits are owned by producers, and Levinoff kills most of the cows in the east. Look at who's killing cows in the west. All three are the names that ****d us for three and one half years now simply because they could and we do not resist. How can producers be expected to simply accept BIC's method of increasing consumption of OTM, knowing full well that the possibility of creating markets by testing has been denied them by the same three names that are controlling the entire Cdn cattle industry? ABP and CCA have taken pride in demonstrating the increased disappearance of OTM. When I asked Glen Brand how BIC justify's the creation of "increased carcass value to the processors", his answer was simply that "we recognize that the pain has not been shared equally". One would reasonably expect that the organization we pay our three dollar/hd levy to would not be party to creating one more opportunity for packers to exploit us after the demonstration of rather obscene packer profits in Canada in the last three and one half years. Most especially in light of the fact that not once have they as an organization ever pursued open critical discussion, with any level of govt, on giving BSE testing a fair opportunity to prove one way or the other as to it's potential success as an alternative marketing tool.
Doug Fraser, a vice pres. of Beef Initiative Group, recently and on his own dime, traveled to New Zealand to finally gather first hand, facts on that countries producer owned slaughter industry. Since we began promoting this concept here through BIG, we have pointed to the example in New Zealand and the successes they've enjoyed. The Alliance Group was the company Doug was shown, by one of their larger producers, in a thirty five hundred km tour of the South Island and seven plants ranging in size. We learned that just over six thousand producers do an average of 1.1 Billion dollars a year business, and that well over seventy percent of the slaughter capacity in N.Z. is producer owned. They virtually scoff at the idea of selling their production any other way, as they'd clearly then bypass the opportunity they now enjoy of recognizing the profit of wholesaling their production to retail, while building equity in the infrastructure. Isn't it ironic that they are one of the main competitors in global beef trade? Isn't it also ironic that they are unencumbered by dictates from "the worlds most lucrative market"? Doug Price accurately pointed out the other night that by competing in global beef trade, we are not encumbered by that nasty "basis" we've become trained to accept when dealing with the US. We simply then are comparing prices globally based on ALL players bids, thereby bypassing the punitive "basis" that has been unexplainably close to double what currency exchange and freight rates suggest it should be time to time. For an entire generation now we've been led to believe that no other method of doing business in the cattle industry exists other than surrendering our production live on the hoof for sale to a multi national processor who in turn exports it as beef. Producers sell cattle, packers sell beef, and all through the history of that business model, for more than one hundred years in North America, the producer has sucked the proverbial hind tit. For three and one half years we've bled in the ditch we fell into in May 03 and have expected to be saved by depending on "Uncle Sam". I submit that the only salvation for this Cdn cattle business will be of our own ambitions and vision. Never at any time have I advocated divorcing trade with the US, rather that we'll only better our own lot when we create the means to vertically integrate primary producers into the value chain. Never have I advocated going head to head against the multi national packers, rather that we build an alternate choice for producers to market their production, a business model that would grow exponentially if industry would put the required effort into it's development. One would reasonably expect that our provincial and national industry organizations would eventually see the changes primary producers require in order to survive, as profit margins have disappeared.. Never have we asked ABP to finance one cent of this development, rather to embrace the idea and assist us in it's promotion to all levels of govt. We envision a business model whereby those enjoying the benefits would also carry the financial burden, all we want from ABP is the referral to govt. to assist in policy development.
The cup is either half full or half empty. Canada produces only two and one half percent of the worlds beef, we eat forty percent of that, and export roughly sixty percent. We will logically always export the bulk of our surplus to the closest market, the US, but we all agree on the need to "spread it around" a bit. Two US based packers enjoy ownership of well over eighty percent of Canada's UTM slaughter capacity and an unhealthy large percentage of OTM slaughter capacity.We need to always remember that the US is as geographically dependant on us as we are on them, and that as a country of three hundred million, they do not produce enough beef to feed themselves. If we developed a producer owned slaughter industry in Canada that eventually marketed even ten percent of our annual beef production, imagine the result of that honest to God competition at ringside when producers offered up the remaining ninety percent for sale. I wonder if "basis" may magically improve? Do you suppose that a well managed producer owned slaughter and brokerage company may be able to eventually remove ten percent of our current beef exports from the US market into the global market? By industry and govt removing the "hobbles" from producers in terms of marketing, could we possibly wean them from dependancy on govt bailouts and "disaster programs"? Would we become somewhat insulated from future punitive trade actions from "south of the forty-ninth", and simultaneously ensure our future self sufficiency in terms of genuine Cdn owned slaughter capacity? Would CBEF find it easier to achieve their mandate of diversifying Cdn beef product around the world if they had a Cdn producer owned slaughter industry with the identical objective in mind?
I believe that the answers to all of these questions are resoundingly yes if we're willing to finally correctly identify our problems and move away from the state of denial we've sucked in to throughout this BSE experience. For every problem known to man there's a solution, but we first have to correctly identify the problem. We've never done that. We as an industry have consistently broken all of the golden rules of business for at least a dozen years in the cattle business. We've increased production to compensate for shrunken profit margins. We've blithely rolled along as more and more of our eggs were placed into one basket, that of Uncle Sam's. We allowed for over twenty years the loss of Cdn owned slaughter capacity, forcing us to be dependant on and vulnerable to the whims of another country. Have you picked up your passport in case you want to holiday in Arizona in January? For three and one half years we've told potential customers they're wrong, our beef is safe, just buy it, we will not test it to your satisfaction, for we have designed our industry around "sound science", no matter that the customer may think that particular science was cooked up in the board rooms of huge US packers. We've watched as even Uncle Sam cannot, in a substantial way, crack the resolve of food safety conscious Japanese and Asian consumers in terms of BSE tested beef. Would we look less culpable twenty years from now if science does actually connect the dots between CJD and Alzheimers if we could point back to Canada implementing voluntary BSE testing in the earlier years of BSE in this country?
The answers to all of these questions in the immediate future are in your hands, though I firmly believe that time will eventually swing the pendulum in this direction. It remains to be seen wether the leadership of the Cdn cattle industry takes the necessary steps to stem the bleeding sooner rather than later. Perhaps more of the "old guard" must leave before change is allowed.You may or may not know that I recently called for the resignation of Hugh Lynch Staunton and the termination of Dennis Laycraft. I did so knowing full well that neither would happen, but also knowing that someone had to point out the fact that very few primary producers support the lack of courage and the lack of substantive change witnessed in three and one half years. My hope in calling for their dismissal was to cause some heads to come together in discussion and recognition of our "go nowhere stand" and to get a few tongues loosened up. Since ABP and CCA are seemingly producers' voice to govt, it seems that they then inherit the responsibility to accurately acknowledge what the industries problems are. Should you decide to stand up and voice your opinions honestly and openly, you'll be pleasantly surprised at the volume of support from producers. We are not the enemy, we'd far rather work with you than against you, but neither will we go away.We can't afford much more of ABP and CCA's leadership as witnessed to this point. Ask yourself, if the road they've chosen is right, why then do we continue to decay as an independent industry? Thank you for taking the time to read this, see you at the AGM. Sincerely,
Cam Ostercamp,
Pres. Beef Initiative Group - Canada
To ABP Delegates and Directors Nov. 26 - 2006
Hello Folks:
At two fall election meetings, Strathmore and Okotoks, I was successful in having two resolutions passed. One was for changes to OTM grading in order for producers to realize price discovery based on carcass quality, the other dealing with the thorny issue of BSE testing for export market re-entry. The resolution pertaining to voluntary testing is asking ABP to push the federal govt to finally officially ask foreign markets we court, on a govt to govt basis, if they would guarantee entry within their borders of Cdn beef product, on the basis of fair trade practices, if we tested it to their specifications. That question has never been officially posed to any of our potential offshore markets.
Since it is nearly impossible for producers to speak at the AGM in defense of our resolutions, I'm hoping you will read this article and give it your consideration, as once again, the success of producers resolutions moving past the AGM is in your hands and will be decided in about as much time as is required to count the show of hands.
While attending the annual supper meeting of our local feeder association last week, we listened to Doug Price as the quest speaker, describing Rancher's Beef's accomplishments and obstacles. He clearly indicated their belief that voluntary testing would no doubt open doors in foreign markets. I felt like we were attending a Beef Initiative Group meeting listening to him. All of the reasons he gave for building the Rancher's Beef plant were exactly what BIG has promoted for close to three years now. The only difference was the number of producers we envisioned participating in the concept. We intended only to offer producers an alternative to the status quo in marketing their production, one that automatically included them in the post processing value chain and for the first time in Cdn beef industry history allowed them control of their production from birth to the wholesaling of the beef derived from their labor. The success of the initiative depends hugely on our obtaining the right to voluntarily BSE test to the customers specifications. So far, discussion of that subject has been completely denied because the US packer and hence the USDA have been thus far successful in banning it. Beef Information Centre publicly boast's that the reason they've been successful in increasing OTM slaughter is the fact that they've increased carcass value to the processors. That's likely a feeling of great accomplishment if your name is Glen Brand. How does it feel as a producer to know that once again he or she will carry the economic burden of the cull cow situation by creating a niche for packers to source their cows at the Cdn captive market price of lately two bits a pound? After slaughter a huge number of those carcasses, now the property of the packer, are graded and fed to Cdn consumers as expensive primal cuts, thereby offering the packer the niche to continue lifting profit from producers pockets. Last year we're told that over one hundred and ninety thousand cows were graded in the west, virtually none in the east. Since the Levinoff plant in Quebec is producer owned, there's no need to grade as all profits are owned by producers, and Levinoff kills most of the cows in the east. Look at who's killing cows in the west. All three are the names that ****d us for three and one half years now simply because they could and we do not resist. How can producers be expected to simply accept BIC's method of increasing consumption of OTM, knowing full well that the possibility of creating markets by testing has been denied them by the same three names that are controlling the entire Cdn cattle industry? ABP and CCA have taken pride in demonstrating the increased disappearance of OTM. When I asked Glen Brand how BIC justify's the creation of "increased carcass value to the processors", his answer was simply that "we recognize that the pain has not been shared equally". One would reasonably expect that the organization we pay our three dollar/hd levy to would not be party to creating one more opportunity for packers to exploit us after the demonstration of rather obscene packer profits in Canada in the last three and one half years. Most especially in light of the fact that not once have they as an organization ever pursued open critical discussion, with any level of govt, on giving BSE testing a fair opportunity to prove one way or the other as to it's potential success as an alternative marketing tool.
Doug Fraser, a vice pres. of Beef Initiative Group, recently and on his own dime, traveled to New Zealand to finally gather first hand, facts on that countries producer owned slaughter industry. Since we began promoting this concept here through BIG, we have pointed to the example in New Zealand and the successes they've enjoyed. The Alliance Group was the company Doug was shown, by one of their larger producers, in a thirty five hundred km tour of the South Island and seven plants ranging in size. We learned that just over six thousand producers do an average of 1.1 Billion dollars a year business, and that well over seventy percent of the slaughter capacity in N.Z. is producer owned. They virtually scoff at the idea of selling their production any other way, as they'd clearly then bypass the opportunity they now enjoy of recognizing the profit of wholesaling their production to retail, while building equity in the infrastructure. Isn't it ironic that they are one of the main competitors in global beef trade? Isn't it also ironic that they are unencumbered by dictates from "the worlds most lucrative market"? Doug Price accurately pointed out the other night that by competing in global beef trade, we are not encumbered by that nasty "basis" we've become trained to accept when dealing with the US. We simply then are comparing prices globally based on ALL players bids, thereby bypassing the punitive "basis" that has been unexplainably close to double what currency exchange and freight rates suggest it should be time to time. For an entire generation now we've been led to believe that no other method of doing business in the cattle industry exists other than surrendering our production live on the hoof for sale to a multi national processor who in turn exports it as beef. Producers sell cattle, packers sell beef, and all through the history of that business model, for more than one hundred years in North America, the producer has sucked the proverbial hind tit. For three and one half years we've bled in the ditch we fell into in May 03 and have expected to be saved by depending on "Uncle Sam". I submit that the only salvation for this Cdn cattle business will be of our own ambitions and vision. Never at any time have I advocated divorcing trade with the US, rather that we'll only better our own lot when we create the means to vertically integrate primary producers into the value chain. Never have I advocated going head to head against the multi national packers, rather that we build an alternate choice for producers to market their production, a business model that would grow exponentially if industry would put the required effort into it's development. One would reasonably expect that our provincial and national industry organizations would eventually see the changes primary producers require in order to survive, as profit margins have disappeared.. Never have we asked ABP to finance one cent of this development, rather to embrace the idea and assist us in it's promotion to all levels of govt. We envision a business model whereby those enjoying the benefits would also carry the financial burden, all we want from ABP is the referral to govt. to assist in policy development.
The cup is either half full or half empty. Canada produces only two and one half percent of the worlds beef, we eat forty percent of that, and export roughly sixty percent. We will logically always export the bulk of our surplus to the closest market, the US, but we all agree on the need to "spread it around" a bit. Two US based packers enjoy ownership of well over eighty percent of Canada's UTM slaughter capacity and an unhealthy large percentage of OTM slaughter capacity.We need to always remember that the US is as geographically dependant on us as we are on them, and that as a country of three hundred million, they do not produce enough beef to feed themselves. If we developed a producer owned slaughter industry in Canada that eventually marketed even ten percent of our annual beef production, imagine the result of that honest to God competition at ringside when producers offered up the remaining ninety percent for sale. I wonder if "basis" may magically improve? Do you suppose that a well managed producer owned slaughter and brokerage company may be able to eventually remove ten percent of our current beef exports from the US market into the global market? By industry and govt removing the "hobbles" from producers in terms of marketing, could we possibly wean them from dependancy on govt bailouts and "disaster programs"? Would we become somewhat insulated from future punitive trade actions from "south of the forty-ninth", and simultaneously ensure our future self sufficiency in terms of genuine Cdn owned slaughter capacity? Would CBEF find it easier to achieve their mandate of diversifying Cdn beef product around the world if they had a Cdn producer owned slaughter industry with the identical objective in mind?
I believe that the answers to all of these questions are resoundingly yes if we're willing to finally correctly identify our problems and move away from the state of denial we've sucked in to throughout this BSE experience. For every problem known to man there's a solution, but we first have to correctly identify the problem. We've never done that. We as an industry have consistently broken all of the golden rules of business for at least a dozen years in the cattle business. We've increased production to compensate for shrunken profit margins. We've blithely rolled along as more and more of our eggs were placed into one basket, that of Uncle Sam's. We allowed for over twenty years the loss of Cdn owned slaughter capacity, forcing us to be dependant on and vulnerable to the whims of another country. Have you picked up your passport in case you want to holiday in Arizona in January? For three and one half years we've told potential customers they're wrong, our beef is safe, just buy it, we will not test it to your satisfaction, for we have designed our industry around "sound science", no matter that the customer may think that particular science was cooked up in the board rooms of huge US packers. We've watched as even Uncle Sam cannot, in a substantial way, crack the resolve of food safety conscious Japanese and Asian consumers in terms of BSE tested beef. Would we look less culpable twenty years from now if science does actually connect the dots between CJD and Alzheimers if we could point back to Canada implementing voluntary BSE testing in the earlier years of BSE in this country?
The answers to all of these questions in the immediate future are in your hands, though I firmly believe that time will eventually swing the pendulum in this direction. It remains to be seen wether the leadership of the Cdn cattle industry takes the necessary steps to stem the bleeding sooner rather than later. Perhaps more of the "old guard" must leave before change is allowed.You may or may not know that I recently called for the resignation of Hugh Lynch Staunton and the termination of Dennis Laycraft. I did so knowing full well that neither would happen, but also knowing that someone had to point out the fact that very few primary producers support the lack of courage and the lack of substantive change witnessed in three and one half years. My hope in calling for their dismissal was to cause some heads to come together in discussion and recognition of our "go nowhere stand" and to get a few tongues loosened up. Since ABP and CCA are seemingly producers' voice to govt, it seems that they then inherit the responsibility to accurately acknowledge what the industries problems are. Should you decide to stand up and voice your opinions honestly and openly, you'll be pleasantly surprised at the volume of support from producers. We are not the enemy, we'd far rather work with you than against you, but neither will we go away.We can't afford much more of ABP and CCA's leadership as witnessed to this point. Ask yourself, if the road they've chosen is right, why then do we continue to decay as an independent industry? Thank you for taking the time to read this, see you at the AGM. Sincerely,
Cam Ostercamp,
Pres. Beef Initiative Group - Canada
Comment