• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Canada Supports Big Ag But Not Producer Co-ops

Econ101

Well-known member
Ranchers’ Choice packs it in

Slaughterhouse project laid to rest



By Cindy McKay

Interlake Spectator

Friday February 16, 2007

Gimli, MB

Canada



Despite three years of lobbying and hard work, the Ranchers’ Choice Beef Co-op executive recently announced it is no longer able to go ahead with a Dauphin slaughter plant.



“It’s a shame. It’s a huge loss for Manitoba. Packing plants are making more money now than they ever have,” said board chairman Bob Munroe. “We had everything done. All we had to do was sign with one of four contractors and within one-and-a-half months there would have been a spade in the ground. But government rejected the final proposal.”



According to Munroe, all the hurdles had been cleared by the organization. It was left to the provincial government to approve the final financial package.



“It wasn’t so much the dollars as the fact that bankers were reluctant to lend to the co-op. If the project was to fail two or three years down the road, government would have to underwrite the loss and they weren’t interested,” Munroe said. “I tend to look at the glass as half full whereas government tends to look at the glass as half empty and getting emptier.”



Ranchers’ Choice was born out of the West Interlake in the summer of 2003 during the BSE crisis. With the border soundly closed to cattle over 30 months of age, slaughtering cull cows and bulls had virtually come to a halt.



The idea to build a slaughter plant grew into a province-wide initiative with government suggesting if 1,000 producers supported the facility, it would kick in some equity, which it did by the way of $2.5 million. A further $7 million in loan guarantees went to Ranchers’ Choice. The provincial government also created the Manitoba Cattle Enhancement Fund to enhance slaughter capacity. The council assesses a $2 check off on every animal sold at auction marts. Some of this money was to be committed to Ranchers’ Choice.



Provincial cattle producers would jump on-board to support the Ranchers’ Choice initiative. Huge recruitment drives took place over a two-year period, attracting 3,300 members who were prepared to invest $1.6 million in the prospective operation.



Throughout the project, every time the organization met government demands, the bar was raised higher.

It wasn’t enough.



Citing the lack of producer support for Ranchers’ Choice as the biggest reason government pulled away, Munroe is disappointed that provincial farm organizations such as Manitoba Cattle Producers Association and Keystone Agriculture Producers did not endorse the project.



“We can’t lay the blame because producers didn’t support it; that serves no purpose,” Munroe, 74, said. “Cattlemen are an independent bunch. Once this is cleaned up, we will try something else. I’ve been in this business since 1954 and haven’t entirely given up.”



The $1.6 million in investment capital will be returned to producers but the membership fees will not.



“Once we are in the clear, there will be a general meeting of the membership to decide what to do with the co-op,” Munroe said.



interlakespectator.com
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I don't know about the details of this deal because this is a very short article but it seems to me big business can get the govt. to do what they want but producer co-ops like this have a hard time.

It is the same way here in the states. You have to wonder why.

Maybe the govt. thinks little producer outfits can not compete with the commodity beef big boys. There was a turkey plant in Virginia, I believe, and the company was pulling out of its processing plant. The turkey growers all knew they were going to lose the value of their buildings, got together, and asked to buy the plant. The processor didn't want to sell. After a lot of political pressure by some of the farmers who were well connected, the company was pretty much forced to sell the growers the plant. They sold it to the growers, the plant was taken over by the growers, and due to the time of the purchase (poultry prices went way up--chickens from 52 cents up to 90 cents) and the growers made it. They paid off debt early and diversified into value added products.

They did a lot of work and were just lucky.

I wish there were a lot of other producer organizations that could be "lucky".

rainie, maybe you could tell us a little more about the deal and what it might take to get something like this off the ground.

At the very least, you have to admire those who tried and still have the fighting attitude.
 

canadian angus

Well-known member
Roll over and put some more tan lotion on and get on with your like eco. Don't you have better things to do than look for uninteresting things to post.

Try the USA has a new baby, it can be sweet on some days, can be forgiving, can be greedy, doesn't know what is right or wrong but has advisors. Good be a leader if the morons think so, like Oldtimer. Yes America go Hillery and I do have a sunburn. Guess I should have skipped eco 101 and taken Logic.

Eco do you know where Ottowa is and who is our leader, not Santa, President ..........quick think hard!

OK it is Rick Mercer and he does like Hillery, Bill too!

Go look under your rug and when you come out and see there is light from under it, we all can gasp for air and say "Thank You".

CA
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
How much was the needed guarantee (which may never use a cent of government money) and how much did they give to Tyson and Cargill?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
canadian angus said:
Roll over and put some more tan lotion on and get on with your like eco. Don't you have better things to do than look for uninteresting things to post.

Try the USA has a new baby, it can be sweet on some days, can be forgiving, can be greedy, doesn't know what is right or wrong but has advisors. Good be a leader if the morons think so, like Oldtimer. Yes America go Hillery and I do have a sunburn. Guess I should have skipped eco 101 and taken Logic.

Eco do you know where Ottowa is and who is our leader, not Santa, President ..........quick think hard!

OK it is Rick Mercer and he does like Hillery, Bill too!

Go look under your rug and when you come out and see there is light from under it, we all can gasp for air and say "Thank You".

CA

CA, were you drunk when you wrote this?
 

Jason

Well-known member
How many were aware that the proposed plant was a hot bone plant?

The idea was to immediately bone the cows and have the beef packaged and shipped in the same day. Sounds great doesn't it? I thought so too, until I found out more about it.

Apperantly the process works well on very thin animals that have little fat cover, i.e. Australia or New Zealand cows. As soon as a cow that has some fat on her is processed, the beef turns black in the package. It isn't bad, but it looks horrible.

Customers refuse the product and the packer is left holding the bag. In this case that would have been the producers.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
How many were aware that the proposed plant was a hot bone plant?

The idea was to immediately bone the cows and have the beef packaged and shipped in the same day. Sounds great doesn't it? I thought so too, until I found out more about it.

Apperantly the process works well on very thin animals that have little fat cover, i.e. Australia or New Zealand cows. As soon as a cow that has some fat on her is processed, the beef turns black in the package. It isn't bad, but it looks horrible.

Customers refuse the product and the packer is left holding the bag. In this case that would have been the producers.

I don't think the majority of the consumers of ground beef from taco bell and others ever see the meat, Jason.

I bet you could think of every reason to not support producer co-ops. Fortunately not everyone is so critical of producer programs and pro packer as you.

You seem to continually opt for big corporate control of your industry. It takes all kinds.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Jason said:
How many were aware that the proposed plant was a hot bone plant?

The idea was to immediately bone the cows and have the beef packaged and shipped in the same day. Sounds great doesn't it? I thought so too, until I found out more about it.

Apperantly the process works well on very thin animals that have little fat cover, i.e. Australia or New Zealand cows. As soon as a cow that has some fat on her is processed, the beef turns black in the package. It isn't bad, but it looks horrible.

Customers refuse the product and the packer is left holding the bag. In this case that would have been the producers.

I don't think the majority of the consumers of ground beef from taco bell and others ever see the meat, Jason.

I bet you could think of every reason to not support producer co-ops. Fortunately not everyone is so critical of producer programs and pro packer as you.

You seem to continually opt for big corporate control of your industry. It takes all kinds.


Econ posting his usual deception tactic............AGAIN!

Make personal attacks on the messenger and ignore the message. That is so much easier than actually refuting the points made and serves the Econ agenda.

Why not tell us how to counter the problem Jason outlined, Econ?

Attempting that would at least have the semblance of honesty, though it does seem doubtful you could succeed.

MRJ

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
Jason said:
How many were aware that the proposed plant was a hot bone plant?

The idea was to immediately bone the cows and have the beef packaged and shipped in the same day. Sounds great doesn't it? I thought so too, until I found out more about it.

Apperantly the process works well on very thin animals that have little fat cover, i.e. Australia or New Zealand cows. As soon as a cow that has some fat on her is processed, the beef turns black in the package. It isn't bad, but it looks horrible.

Customers refuse the product and the packer is left holding the bag. In this case that would have been the producers.

I don't think the majority of the consumers of ground beef from taco bell and others ever see the meat, Jason.

I bet you could think of every reason to not support producer co-ops. Fortunately not everyone is so critical of producer programs and pro packer as you.

You seem to continually opt for big corporate control of your industry. It takes all kinds.


Econ posting his usual deception tactic............AGAIN!

Make personal attacks on the messenger and ignore the message. That is so much easier than actually refuting the points made and serves the Econ agenda.

Why not tell us how to counter the problem Jason outlined, Econ?

Attempting that would at least have the semblance of honesty, though it does seem doubtful you could succeed.

MRJ

MRJ

If you had the ability to READ AND THINK MRJ, you would see that I did.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
I don't think the majority of the consumers of ground beef from taco bell and others ever see the meat, Jason.

I bet you could think of every reason to not support producer co-ops. Fortunately not everyone is so critical of producer programs and pro packer as you.

You seem to continually opt for big corporate control of your industry. It takes all kinds.


Econ posting his usual deception tactic............AGAIN!

Make personal attacks on the messenger and ignore the message. That is so much easier than actually refuting the points made and serves the Econ agenda.

Why not tell us how to counter the problem Jason outlined, Econ?

Attempting that would at least have the semblance of honesty, though it does seem doubtful you could succeed.

MRJ

MRJ

If you had the ability to READ AND THINK MRJ, you would see that I did.


Grinding and hiding the discolored meat is a deception, not a solution to the problem, Econ.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Econ posting his usual deception tactic............AGAIN!

Make personal attacks on the messenger and ignore the message. That is so much easier than actually refuting the points made and serves the Econ agenda.

Why not tell us how to counter the problem Jason outlined, Econ?

Attempting that would at least have the semblance of honesty, though it does seem doubtful you could succeed.

MRJ

MRJ

If you had the ability to READ AND THINK MRJ, you would see that I did.


Grinding and hiding the discolored meat is a deception, not a solution to the problem, Econ.

MRJ

Even if Jason's assertion was true (which I don't know if it is or not---he has been wrong on a lot of things), the color does not affect the product's safety or indicate its safety. As a matter of fact, I bet Tyson has no problem engaging in this very act at this moment.

So in your mind, this is deceptive but packaging the meat in a sealed gas container by the packers that can disguise the action of regular air as an indication of freshness is not?

Again, another example of your bias towards packers.
 

Kato

Well-known member
We put money into Rancher's Choice. We put what we could afford, as did the other over 3000 producers.

It's kind of like getting homeless people to cough up the cash to build a shelter, and then blaming them for not being able to do it. If you had the money you wouldn't be homeless would you?

:mad: The thing that makes me mad about all this is the way the government has used this situation more as a PR strategy than anything else. If we had a dollar for every time they spouted off in the media about how wonderfully they were standing behind cattle producers, while not really intending to, we'd have built the plant by now. :roll: :roll: :roll: If they didn't want to get involved, and really do something useful, then they shouldn't have run around pretending that they did, just so they'd look good in the city. Personally I don't care if they get behind it or not, I just don't like being mislead.

The worst part is that now we have to live with a checkoff that they seem to have no intention of ever putting any more use than paying wages and creating jobs ito administer it.

BTW, we got our investment back from Rancher's Choice. Every penny. And we've also applied for our checkoff back. Every penny. When they prove to me that they intend to do something besides pat themselves on the back, then maybe I'll let them keep the money.

End of rant. 8)
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Grinding and hiding the discolored meat is a deception, not a solution to the problem, Econ.

MRJ


MRJ...I was under the impression that you thought it was ok for the packers to gas the meat to hide the rotten meat. But you think it is machiavellian of them to grind discolored meat that is fresh. Correct me if I am wrong. :roll: :wink:
 

rainie

Well-known member
Yep. I feel the same Kato. I think we all got lead around by our noses. We put in money too and got it back. I'm also applying to the enhancement council to get my checkoff returned. And for the first time ever , I've started applying to the mcpa for a refund from them too. Tired off all the politics, and paying someones wages to sit in an office. Still have a sore spot for Rosie and her advisors. She sat on the fence for too long, trying to decide which way to go.Meanwhile, what's going to happen to the 12 million dollars worth of meat cutting equipment sitting in storage. Hope we can make use of it somehow.
 

mrj

Well-known member
ranch hand said:
Grinding and hiding the discolored meat is a deception, not a solution to the problem, Econ.

MRJ


MRJ...I was under the impression that you thought it was ok for the packers to gas the meat to hide the rotten meat. But you think it is machiavellian of them to grind discolored meat that is fresh. Correct me if I am wrong. :roll: :wink:

Most certainly you are wrong! Talk to a licensed veterinarian or professional person who knows what the packaging you accuse of being to sell rotten beef really is, please.

I know and understand quite well that it is for the purpose of keeping the beef in a pristine condition by locking OUT the contaminants that can and do enter the old style packaging.

The old style was not a sealed package, as anyone who has purchased meat and had it bleed on other purchases on the trip home from the supermarket can tell you!

I believe there is a clear "USE BY" or "SELL BY" date on the package which anyone with enough understanding to be buying and preparing food requiring cooking should be able to figure out, as well.

While you are talking to that vet, you might also ask about proper procedures for protecting calves (and the beef they will become) from some nasty 'surprises' for the consumer. reading a previous post you made indicated you were not very well up on, or were suspicious of manufacturers/sellers of more than the very most basic injectable protections from diseases in cattle.

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "I know and understand quite well that it is for the purpose of keeping the beef in a pristine condition by locking OUT the contaminants that can and do enter the old style packaging"

In that case, you're terribly wrong, MRJ. It is NOT to keep the beef in pristine condition - it is to make the beef APPEAR to be in pristine condition. As you mentioned peviously, the buyer then has to beware.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
While you are talking to that vet, you might also ask about proper procedures for protecting calves (and the beef they will become) from some nasty 'surprises' for the consumer. reading a previous post you made indicated you were not very well up on, or were suspicious of manufacturers/sellers of more than the very most basic injectable protections from diseases in cattle.

MRJ

MRJ... don't have much time as I have a heifer calving. But would you provide where I stated this.

What does a vet know about the packaging and gasing of meat? We vaccinate calves at branding time, pre-condition when the buyer wants and any heifers held over for replacements. We doctor the sick ones and place a ear tag to differentiate the ones that will not go all natural. What more do you as a self appointed know it all want us to do different? :roll: :roll: :roll: :???: :???:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ, the discoloration of meat by natural air is an indicator of freshness for consumers, would you agree or disagree?

The process you champion does not allow this to occur, agree or disagree.

Labels can be changed, but the discoloration of the natural air can not be, agree or disagree.

Gas treated packages have a different color than non gas treated packages, agree or disagree.

Consumers have an independent source of verifying that the meat is fresh by looking at the discoloration, agree or disagree.

Pathogens already on the meat can still multiply with the gas treated packages and the consumer can not, independent of the label, tell the freshness by color, agree or disagree.

Under the gas treatment you have to trust the "sell by" date and have no independent source of verifying age on shelf.


After answering all these questions, I believe the consumer (who doesn't know what gas can do) needs a disclaimer or warning label to let them know these facts and that gas treated does not allow them to tell freshness by color.

In every instance, it seems you want everyone to "trust the packer". We already know the USDA does not inspect sufficiently to catch all pathogen contamination. We even know that when big packers ship beef to their value added processors, the USDA does not allow safety testing, thus protecting the big packers from liability. The consumer has to suffer, the beef problem is tracked to the value added processor, and the USDA protects the commodity beef processors from liability. These exact cases have already happened in the market place, MRJ.

MRJ, you just want everyone to trust the government/big packers and let everyone else take the hit if they make a mistake.

Protect big packers and their system of non responsibility is what you are all about, MRJ. Just because you provide them the commodity beef and have a self interest in this system, do you think the rest of the industry and consumers should pay for big packer mistakes and lack of USDA safety competence?

On to of all of that, you want to take Cargill Jason's word that dark ground beef is present in hot bone operations can't be successfully sold because of the color of the meat, having nothing to do with the safety of it.

As I said before, Tyson probably already sells hot bone ground beef. Yet you want to take Cargill Jason's (who has been wrong so many times before) word that a producer co-op will not be successful.

When are you ever going to stop discriminating against producers and stop your obvious bias towards packers and commodity beef?
 
Top