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

Dear Hugh

rkaiser

Well-known member
Probably more interesting reading for the canucks on the board but may tell some of our American cousins what most producers in Canada think of our so called leadership.

Randy



Hugh Lynch Staunton

President

Canadian Cattlemen's Association



Dear Hugh,

In May of 2004 I released a controversial paper entitled Behind the Veil of Science describing my opinions as to the state of the Canadian cattle industry both prior to and post May 20, 2003. As I recall, your reaction to that essay was an indignant, "how dare you blind-side industry leadership with such slander". In order not to be accused of "blind-siding" you, I am informing you in a very public and transparent way of the release of another compilation of my opinions. I wrote this last paper, "The Trickle-Down Illusion" in May 06, but until now have not churned it out in earnest.

I am writing this letter to you with two hats on, so to speak. First, I am expressing my opinions as one of Canada's frustrated and seemingly hopeless primary agriculture producers, and secondly as President of Beef Initiative Group - Canada. Possibly, Hugh, if we lived across the fence from one another with no beef industry issues between us, we could be better neighbors, but such is not the case and spades always must be called spades in my world. I suppose that the September announcement of Korea's intent to allow US beef past their border to the exclusion of any Canadian product and the Korean dictate of no Canadian beef to be processed in plants shipping product to them may have been the catalyst. As well the latest announcement of Mexico's intent to import dairy replacement stock, but the US refusal to trans ship Cdn animals across US soil exempts Canada once again from entering that market either.These are just the latest demonstrations in a long list, of Canadian producers being held subservient to the U.S. by a lack of courage on the part of Canadian industry and political leadership to set policy and pave the way for honest to God change in the way the Canadian Beef industry conducts it's affairs.

I'll not waste time ranting in this letter about the changes required, read the enclosed attachments or better yet, refer to our website www.beef-initiative-group.com. We fully recognize the need to resume trade with the US, as we allowed ourselves to become completely dependant on that country in the past ten years. Where industry leadership gets a failing grade is in its refusal to embrace any ideas for the kind of long term change this Canadian industry urgently requires. The U.S. can well afford to satisfy the packing industries refusal to BSE test, for they do not depend on an export market to survive, as has been proven by historic high prices both on live cattle and processed beef in that country for the past three years. The lack of courage to take Canada down it's own road, so to speak, has meant that we remain subservient to the U.S. and still must sell sixty percent of our production; a task made that much more onerous by an unwillingness on the part of industry leadership to embrace the tools and policies required to enter the very markets we court. As your introduction as the Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) President, you pointed to a business degree on your resume. When you were studying for your business degree, was any mention made of the golden rule that "the customer is always right"? Can we not use our imaginations enough to find a solution to our three and a half years of BSE lessons other than being obedient to the controlling powers that set us up for this debacle? One cannot argue with statistics, and there are reams of stats to prove that we were failing at the producer level for years prior to May 2003.

It baffles most of us languishing in this Canadian captive market of beef that under your watch we continue to defy and break most of the golden rules of business. We continue to have most of our export eggs in one basket, the price we pay, I believe, for your steadfast refusal to lobby for BSE testing to satisfy the various markets we court. Under your watch, both as vice President and now as President of CCA, we continue to hear only silence on the subject of Cargill's acquisition of better beef in Ontario, giving them ownership of over fifty percent of fed cattle slaughter capacity in Canada. Their market share of slaughter capacity at home in the U.S. is around thirteen percent. You will remind me that the competition bureau gave the nod on that acquisition. I will remind you that Beef Initiative Group was awarded three and one half hours with the competition board also on their cross country tour investigating Cargill's takeover of Better Beef. What we learned in that discussion was that the competition board was not allowed to investigate whether the takeover would prevent future competition in the way of genuine Canadian owned slaughter capacity from developing. They were only allowed to determine if Cargill would have an unfair competitive advantage east to west. With a few hundred miles of great Canadian Shield dipping down between Manitoba and Ontario, the answer to both questions was easy. The CCA failed as an organization to make any effort to curtail the power of one of the main players who've held us hostage and raped the industry for over three years. To the contrary, CCA's website stated after the announcement "this is good news, it shows Cargill's faith in the Canadian cattle industry." Some of us thought it showed Cargill thumbing their nose at Canadian government and Canadian producers by further concentrating their control over the Canadian industry. I think the jury's in on that debate.

You've stated on different occasions that you believe it better to approach Canada's beef trade issues walking softly and "harmonizing" the North American market. Seems an appropriate time to point out that a fair bit of conflict of interest exists within CCA. You have on board a director from Alberta who is a veterinarian and who also operates a large scale feedlot animal health consultant business. Last year, if memory serves me, he was at the forefront of a push to eliminate the "own use import" policy for generic Ivermectin. I suspect his firm sells a sizeable share of the brand name product here in Canada, thus it seems he should have excused himself from that debate. In the interest of harmonizing, one would think that our national organization would be promoting any opportunity to be cost comparative with US producers. On that subject, I recall in the early seventies Charlie Gracey going to bat for Canadian cattle feeders when Stilbesterol was banned in Canada by European trade action but not in the US. His reaction to that was to insist that if Canadian producers were not allowed use of the product, then the Canadian Government must insist that any beef imported from the U.S. be proven not to have been fed the product either. In short order the product was banned on both sides of the 49th parallel. Seems to me that Dennis Laycraft failed to come to bat for us in this more recent case. Years past, we had a CCA that actually fought for the producer that financed the organization, rather than allowing the interests of a few, or worse yet the dictates of the U.S. and the U.S. packer to set policy for whatever remains of the Canadian beef industry. We now appear to have an Executive Vice President in charge of an extremely weak board; and so it seems, the tail wags the dog.

I fear we have for too long allowed industry to mistake one of the world's largest economies as "the world's most lucrative market". Seems anyone should be able to analyze the last dozen years data on declining farm gate profit margins and conclude that the way agriculture business has been conducted in recent years has sent the family operations in Canadian agriculture spiraling down. All levels of agriculture industry and political leadership seem to have exempted themselves from having to deal with this thorny issue by clinging to the belief that the "trickle down concept" will be our salvation, and, it would appear that you include yourself in this group. The concentrated control that agriculture related corporations exert over the primary producer, both on input costs and on the sale of our production, has proven time and again to the detriment of us producing the goods, yet you continue to cram that "harmonizing the North American market" line at us. How can industry leaders justify continuing to force producers to increase production in order to compensate for shrinking profit margins, this at a time when our market is held captive on our own soil, and we're not allowed the use of the tools necessary to rectify the situation? I submit to you that we are held back in this country more so by domestic policy and lack of courage than by all of the WTO grievances ballyhooed. Agriculture leadership in Canada is almost comparable to Neville Chamberlain repeatedly flying off for tea with the enemy in 1937, all the while allowing them to snow him with bullshit. It bit Chamberlain in the ass in the end and the jury is now in on Canada's relationship with Uncle Sam in every industry we trade in. Should we mention softwood, energy, wheat, pork, steel?

For some time now, we've been led to believe that our "Age Verification Program" was the be-all to end-all. I agree; it has the appearance of being a very good thing for Canadian Producers. The "but" in this is that it will only benefit the primary producers if those same producers are convinced to take advantage of the program and finish, process, and market their own beef to global customers. What good is there in little Doug Horner's drive to make age verification mandatory? What good is there in creating one more market for the three packers who've raped us when the primary producer is held captive by the oligopoly that exists, forcing them to surrender live on the hoof at less than breakeven prices? When all calves are packing an age tag, there is no competition at ringside to cause Cargill and Tyson to bid harder to own them. Clearly, all profits from age verification will benefit those selling beef. The feedlot operator may recognize a twenty or thirty dollar per head premium, barely covering his added handling and sorting costs. I'll wager the producer who bought and installed the tags and administered the program at the grass roots level won't see a cent for his efforts, unless he sells the product of his labors to the Japanese or some other foreign market by his own efforts. In the system we operate under, producers sell cattle, packers sell beef. Government and industry made huge political hay over our age verification system being state of the art in the world, putting us years ahead of other countries. Out of the blue came the US with their A40 bone ossification grading, so much for age verification trumping the need to BSE test. We were once again reminded of our place in the North American pecking order. We once again acted like a beaten old gelding and retreated.

Perhaps we need also to dredge up another bit of other history that has now bitten CCA in the ass, that being the way the national organization chose to deny the evidence back in 2001 of the potential for a BSE outbreak and the fact that rendering, while profitable to the packers, carried with it the perception in the rest of the world of sacrificing human safety. After watching Japan's political debacle in their BSE experience, perhaps CCA might have came to the conclusion that rendering should go the way of the Dodo bird. Once again, however, the American packing industry proved, as it's done for over a hundred years, that it's bigger than government or industry or presidential decrees or acts of congress. As long as there's a buck to be made from rendering, we're going to render, CCA and CFIA be damned, and damned you are.

On the subject of research done relating to the cattle industry, there exists a study commissioned by Alberta Beef Producers (ABP) entitled Economic Losses Associated With Cull Cows, completed by Plan 2000 Management Associates Ltd. And Informa Economics. This study was bought and paid for with at least some of our check-off dollars, yet at the time of this writing we have not been allowed to see it. The results of this study are to be another embarrassment to ABP and CCA. We wonder if that accounts for it being withheld from us. Would producers benefit from having access to this document? Do producers ultimately own this study? The findings in this study may enlighten a large percentage of Cdn cow - calf producers as to future impacts on their bottom line, yet since July 06 the information has remained shelved.

It is painfully obvious that there exists in Canada today, two types of beef producers. The primary producer at the bottom of the economic food chain, and only one link above him, the feedlot producer. [See "Lifting the Veil" 2005, www.beef-initiative-group.com] We operate under a system designed to pit one against the other, one marketing a very small number annually, the other operating on huge volume but with very skinny margins. There is simply not enough room left at the end of industry leadership discussion presently to include the primary producer in the conversation. He's been cast adrift and is on his own. The best illustration of this point that I can think of is a rather heated Ben Thorlakson in Red Deer in January, 2005 stating,

"Why would we worry about the primary producer when income from cow herds is at best a secondary and usually tertiary income for them, and they all have off-farm jobs to support themselves anyway. Most of them keep cow herds around to eat off sloughs and headlands that they can't farm".

The debt that cow herd has piled up for the primary producer and the fact that he or she has to take a second full time job is a symptom of the disease, not an acceptable out for industry leadership, but Ben Thorlakson certainly did tip his hand as to where leadership concerns truly lie.

As most of us see it, the kind of change we need leadership to promote is that kind of change that will integrate the Canadian producer into the value chain rather than to simply surrender our product live on the hoof and take whatever we're given. The beef industry suffers no legal barriers as exists within the grain industry, i.e., Wheat Board constraints, etc. It is but a matter of convincing industry leadership to discuss the merits of helping producers out of the hole on their own cognizance, rather than having to rely on government bail-outs. If as much energy had been spent exploring and establishing these ideas since Beef Initiative Group presented them two and a half years ago, we may now have the first producer owned slaughter plant up and running and selling Canadian BSE tested beef to any market in the world. Instead, we've sat and watched as Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina and others have deftly and willingly filled the vacancies in Asian and Japanese markets left open to them by Americas' stubborn refusal to BSE test and Canada's obedient and subservient compliance when ordered not to test either. It is a bitter irony that beginning in 1982, New Zealand was probably worse off than we were three or four years ago, yet today they are one of our main competitors in the global beef trade. They became so because of the "Wilson budget" of 1982 which cast the agricultural sector adrift in terms of any further government subsidy, thus forcing producers to gel up and survive. They did so in the beef industry primarily by forming producer owned processing plants and aggressively marketing their product globally. Fortunately, they were not encumbered by dictates from "the world's most lucrative market". By no means am I naive enough to suggest that a similar transformation for the Canadian beef industry will be easy; rather, I believe that we have no choice. At this late date, perhaps it's too little too late and that may be the Lynch Staunton legacy.

I have said many times that Canada should not focus on going head to head against Cargill and Tyson, rather we should put our own boat in the water and create an alternate market for ten percent of our annual beef production, thus causing the Cargill's and Tyson's to bid harder on the remaining ninety percent of our annual production. This would, possibly for the first time, cause something that resembles honest to God competition and begin to crack the concentrated control that the multi-nationals currently have over us. For this to ever come to fruition we require the courage of industry leadership to help promote, and that is the key ingredient that we presently do not have. It seems a shame that the very national organization we finance through check-off dollars lacks the business savvy to help us to better ourselves.

As I write this, the combination of a high Canadian dollar and increasing feed grain prices coupled with the Korean announcement banning Canadian beef from North American imports, will likely amount to virtually every producer in this country being held hostage once again and forced to sell calves at far less than a breakeven in order to try and service mounting debt. Once again, seems like no-one should have to be reminded of the farcical stand Canada has taken.

We can no longer stand at the 49th parallel and beg Uncle Sam to take us back. Time is indeed a potent jury, and we have watched the clock tick for well over three years now. Unless one is foolhardy enough to subscribe to the "trickle down illusion" there is left to us no choice for survival at the family farm level than to drastically rethink the way we conduct ourselves as an industry, if we wish to be able to be called an industry. We will not survive at the family farm level by continuing to be forced to forfeit our production at a loss. Far better to fight and fail than continue to roll over. To date, we've not seen any fight or vision nor an original idea for change come from any of the provincial organizations nor the national cattle organization. It is impossible for any of us to know whether the lack of action from CCA for over three years has been the result of fear or simply because the situation overwhelmed the capabilities of those at the helm; it matters not. What is essential now, to salvage what's left, is the removal of the top end and a focused effort to work toward change.

I therefore, as president of Beef Initiative Group - Canada, publicly state my belief that for the good of whatever is salvageable to Cdn primary producers, there must be wholesale change in the leadership of CCA and massive policy change in how the Cdn industry promotes beef processing and sales. In conclusion, I believe before further financial damage can be inflicted on this countries beef producers, we need the resignation of Hugh Lynch - Staunton as president of CCA and the termination of Dennis Laycraft as executive vice president - CCA.Further to that happening, I believe we need to closely examine the performance at the director level of ABP, as that organization in essence carries a bigger stick than does CCA by virtue of the fact that forty percent of Canada's beef mother herd resides in Alberta, and over seventy percent of Canada's annual beef production is finished in Alberta. It is my firm belief, and time has proven this point, that the stand ABP has taken for three and a half years now mirrors that of CCA. Perhaps through concerted effort by producers and government involvement, this means dismantling the entire structure and rebuilding. It may be more graceful to resign than implode.



Sincerely,







Cam Ostercamp

President, Beef Initiative Group- Canada
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kaiser- Apparently the CCA follows right along with the NCBA whose President Mike Johns says they don't want to compete against anyone :roll: :wink:

Both apparently goosestep to the AMI/Multinationals drumbeat :mad: :(
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
BMR, you asked today what to do - I'd say Mr. Ostercamp has a few ideas. If I was a Canadian producer, I'd be behind this guy 100%
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Seems CCA and ABP follow the same idea as NCBA...what is good for the large packer is good for the industry.[note for SH...this is the packer influence we talk about] With a government/industry cheap food policy, what is good for the large packer(increased margins) is cheap live cattle! Any cow/calf producer that can't see the antagonism (detriment to your livelihood) is blind or worse....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Seems CCA and ABP follow the same idea as NCBA...what is good for the large packer is good for the industry.[note for SH...this is the packer influence we talk about] With a government/industry cheap food policy, what is good for the large packer(increased margins) is cheap live cattle! Any cow/calf producer that can't see the antagonism (detriment to your livelihood) is blind or worse....

SH and MRJ, your bell is ringing.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I'm really disheatened with you Canucks. OT posts on comments at a sale barn and that draws plenty of responses. Any R-CALF subject draws all of you out for several posts. Here is a Canadian producer making very bold statements and issueing a call to action that would effect all of you greatly, and nobody has anything to say? Geeeeeeze, guys. If a R-CALF member called for Bullard's head, you guys would overload the system posting on it, but silence on your own business?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
The problem is Sandman, that most ranchers are just really nice guys trying to make a living and feed their families.

Cam and the BIG C group will get quite a few folks who will call us whiners and complainers. Just leave things alone - the powers that be will look after us. I think not. In fact I don't believe that our current ABP/CCA has any interest left in the primary cow calf producer of this country.

A recent study on the Economic Losses Associated with Cull cows commisioned by ABP shows an incredible incompetence on the part of industry leadership in this country. 500 bucks stolen from the ranchers while the extra cost to the packer was 50 bucks. I guess the rest went to the homeless eh.

Summary
A SUMMARY OF THE REPORT ON ESTIMATED LOSSES
ASSOCIATED WITH CULL COWS

October, 2006


1.The report, prepared by Plan 2000 Management Consultants Ltd and Informa Economics, focuses on the economic losses associated with cull cows resulting from the closure of the US border to cattle over 30 months of age (OTM) and beef from those cattle over the period June 2003 through to December 2005.
2.At the producer level, the report attempts to quantify the impact of price declines on revenue as well as possible increases in production costs as a result of increased debt and changes in culling and other management decisions. It also considers the offsetting value of Government support programs. The report looks at the costs to the packing industry of changes in Government health regulations and considers the impact that grading and import policies have had and could have on the industry.
3.The impact on producer returns was calculated using simple US and Canadian price comparisons before and after the closure of the border adjusted for such factors as the increased US price resulting from lack of access to Canadian cow and cow beef. The Consultants estimate that the revenue loss on D1/2 cows ranged from $470.00 to $547.00/head and on D3 cows ranged from $390.00 to $474.00/head. Losses in Eastern Canada were slightly higher than in the west.
4.The average calculated per head losses were applied to the cow marketings over the period June 2003 to December 2005 and indicated a total loss of approximately $513 million to the production sector. Of this amount, $247 million was lost in the west and the balance in the east. The calculated losses in Eastern Canada were higher than those in the west because of higher cow slaughter numbers in the east.
5.The material relating to the impact on producer income is derived primarily from a report prepared by the Government of Alberta. This suggests that revenue to cow/calf producers from the sale of cull cows, which is normally around $130.00 per cow wintered, or 14% of total income from the sale of cattle, fell to $43.00 per cow wintered or 7% of total income following the closure of the border.
6.The report makes some attempt to determine the impact of the BSE crisis on production costs. It notes that the decline in equity and/or increased debt arising because of the significant drop in gross income would result in higher debt service costs or alternatively lower investment income. In addition changes to culling rates and other management decisions could result in lower calving percentages, reduced weaning rates and higher feed costs. The report does not attempt to quantify these possible cost increases, suggesting that they would vary significantly between producers.





7.The reports lists the various Federal and Alberta Government support programs that were implemented as a result of the BSE crisis and notes that most of the support was aimed at keeping marketings current in the fed cattle sector. However it suggests that the programs available to cow/calf producers in Alberta over the period 2003 and 2004 had a value of around $43.00 per cull cow marketed, thus reducing the loss from approximately $489.00 per head down to $390.00 per head.
8.The consultants outline the domestic slaughter capacity for OTM cattle at the time that the report was written (spring, 2006) and consider what impact restricted access to slaughter capacity might have on the marketing of cows assuming that the border remains closed. Data derived from Statistics Canada indicated that as of January 1st 2006, there was one year’s supply of cull cows remaining on farms.
9.The report considers the impact that new health regulations are having on packing plant costs and returns. These include the need to remove Specified Risk Material and the loss of a market for Meat and Bone Meal as well as the cost of disposing of unsaleable materials. It estimates the total cost of these requirements to be between $25.00 and $50.00 per head of cattle slaughtered. These costs would be highest for OTM.
10.New Canadian health regulations on the removal of SRM’s to be implemented in July next year could increase costs by a further $4.00 to $5.00 per head on OTM cattle and unless the US takes similar action would put Canadian packers at a disadvantage vis a vis packers in the US. This would lead to increased exports of live cows if and when the border opens.
11.Substantial quantities of manufacturing type beef are derived from the trim on fed cattle and this supply can influence the price of cull cows. The amount of material available from fed cattle carcasses varies by season and by market conditions.
12.The report suggests that once the border was closed to OTM cattle, the grading system for cull cows became irrelevant with age being the only determinant of value. The consultants suggest that the current cow grading system is a very poor measure of value and that work being done by the industry to develop an improved value based grading system for cow carcasses needs to be completed regardless of whether or not the border is re-opened.
13.The consultants suggest that an accurate system of age verification is essential if Canada is to develop secure international beef markets.
14.The report considers the impact that Canada’s beef import regime has had and could have on the price and trade in cull cows. It concludes that the existence of Supplementary Import Licenses has distorted trade between the US and Canada and if left in place will lead to increased cow exports if and when the border re-opens.

Yes nothing much more than we already knew ---- but should we just accept it????????????????????????
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I am afraid some Canadians already have. Don't rock the boat or it might tip over mentality. Sometimes you have to tip the boat over to get rid of the riff raff.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kaiser, "The problem is Sandman, that most ranchers are just really nice guys trying to make a living and feed their families. Cam and the BIG C group will get quite a few folks who will call us whiners and complainers. Just leave things alone - the powers that be will look after us. I think not. In fact I don't believe that our current ABP/CCA has any interest left in the primary cow calf producer of this country. "

I don't doubt your assessment that most ranchers are just good guys trying to make a living - same thing down here. However, I don't think stepping outside of your comfort zone of home and becoming active influencing the factors that determine how and even if you will feed your family makes you a bad guy. I would submit that it makes you a responsible guy and that you owe it to your family. I realize in your case that I'm preaching to the choir, but the success of a democracy depends on active citizens, and I think the exact same holds true in this case.

One would think that the last few years would of been a huge wake-up call for producers up there. I don't know the history of the Canadian cattle industry, but have you ever went through any crisis that rocked you as hard as this one did? Seems to me that if something such as a disease caused you that much damage, there would be a huge call to action initiated for vaccination, inspection, etc... Maybe I'm just not listening to the right place, but I don't hear much call for change. On the contrary, it seems most of the Canadian posters here are defending the system that caused all the problems in the first place, and will undoubtedly cause more.

I don't feel sorry for the sleepers or the ones who lay the blame on the US or R-CALF. They're getting just what they asked for. I do feel sorry for the fellas that are getting drug down with them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
3.The impact on producer returns was calculated using simple US and Canadian price comparisons before and after the closure of the border adjusted for such factors as the increased US price resulting from lack of access to Canadian cow and cow beef. The Consultants estimate that the revenue loss on D1/2 cows ranged from $470.00 to $547.00/head and on D3 cows ranged from $390.00 to $474.00/head. Losses in Eastern Canada were slightly higher than in the west.


Now how the USDA/CFIA/CCA/NCBA/ABP/ etal that goose step with the Multinationals could figure that testing to gain back a portion of a $500 head loss isn't worth it, is beyond my comprehension. Even if it cost $100 a test...

And Sandhusker you are correct...The silence of all the Canadians speak volumes... I'm glad tho to see Canada still has some independent thinking and action oriented producers like Randy and Cam... The rest seem to have been mesmerised by the status quo flute played out to them by a regressive thinking leadership...
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
And Sandhusker you are correct...The silence of all the Canadians speak volumes... I'm glad tho to see Canada still has some independent thinking and action oriented producers like Randy and Cam... The rest seem to have been mesmerised by the status quo flute played out to them by a regressive thinking leadership...

:roll:

OT, you obviously know almost nothing of the Canadian cattle industry, and you appear to take the few Canadian posters on Rancher's as an accurate indicator of the feelings of Canadian cattlemen. I think you may want to find new sources of information, such as CANADIAN publications, and actually speak to real Canadian cattle producers.

I can't think of a single solitary Canadian producer who doesn't believe that we need to secure other export markets. And there are very few cattle producers who don't support BSE testing on at least over 20 month animals. Remember my little poll a while back? While there were 3 against (and we know who they were), there were at least 7 Canadians for that I'm aware of.

Our inability to secure other export markets comes from several areas:
1) R-Calf. While every producer knows we need other exports, we're also intelligent enough to realize that at least for the short term, we need the US market to ensure our families get fed. As long as R-Calf continues to try and close borders, a healthy percentage of cattle producers are only going to be concerned about that particular border. When R-Calf knocks off the crap, we can concentrate on other issues.

2) The CCA is now a sell out organization. Unfortunately, this is a relatively recent development, and many producers are still in the watching phase to see if the CCA regains its direction. Also see 1). The CCA is trying to open the US border, and since most producers are concerned with that border, as long as the CCA keeps trying to open the border, many producers won't see the other issues.

3) The CFIA is a sell out organization. I think most producers are aware of this, however, Canadian primary producers are a battered bunch. I know you Americans believe that we are covered in government money and support, but nothing is further from the truth. For decades, we have had no support from government and have had to BEG for what disaster relief scraps we can get. Many producers have simply given up after trying for decades to force change in Canadian agricultural policy. These days, after an election, we just pray that the new government doesn't hurt us anymore.

more later, my little fellas require some attention....
Rod
 

elwapo

Well-known member
dont underestimate the Canadian producer boys. 99% of them are now working to support the ranch. It is a sad situation that will bring the hardest working smartest managers to the top as the rest simply wont survive. We now all know that we cannot trust the packers, gov , or other rancher groups such as r-calf. Self interest has trumped all in this and we are progressing from the old family farm to the world of business. Our grandparents and great grandparents survived because they could live on what they produced. This is not the first or last great cattle robbery. It has taken many out of the business and I fear many more will fall due to the dropping calf prices in the near future. We have an aging agricultural population that will be replaced by hutterites and very large corporate farms. There will be space for niche agricultural producers and that is the direction the family ranch must take.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rod- I think I actually do know where many of the Canadians set- as most of those that I personally talk with do think much the same as Randy, Cam, and you- and that is the reason I have told the Jasons, Big Muddy's, and Tams, some of which put themselves out to be the Canadian industry leaders, that I don't think their anti anything new and/or everything progressive thinking is the attitude of the Canadians I know...

But it is nice to hear you back up what I have thought- it would just be nice to hear a few more Canadians on here get vocal and disagree with the status quo leadership/direction being taken in Canada and those that blindly support it...But I suppose that would take away from somes R-CALF bashing, which has become the cause of everything in Canada from BSE to global warming in the mindsets of some :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Rod, "R-Calf. While every producer knows we need other exports, we're also intelligent enough to realize that at least for the short term, we need the US market to ensure our families get fed. As long as R-Calf continues to try and close borders, a healthy percentage of cattle producers are only going to be concerned about that particular border. When R-Calf knocks off the crap, we can concentrate on other issues."

R-CALF realizes there is another group that depends on the US market - US producers. The crap that needs to be knocked off is the USDA carrying water for the packers. We were told that border closings were what was needed to protect us. Doesn't it stand to reason that a reversal of this policy puts us at risk? US producers would be fools not to challenge that reversal.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Mind if we steer off the Rcalf trail for at least one thread folks.

My claim that most primary producers feel the way that Cam has the guts to speak was verified when we took our show on the road in 2004. Without contacting our secretary for exact numbers, we had well in excess of 90% of the respondent's to our questionnaire supporting BSE testing for export marketing purposes and other policies suggested by BIG C.

The primary producers of this country have been cast adrift and we have virtually no representation on any government level.

Can you imagine the difference in price to the producer compared to the extra cost to the packer for a moment. $500 vs. $50. Now add in the fact that beef prices have not declined a bit at the retail level and our own mandatory levy dollars have actually helped the packer and the retailer receive more for his product through the efforts of ABP/CCA's Beef Information Center.

This kind of stuff is impossible to argue and should be a total embarrassment to those in charge at our ABP/CCA.

Piss on Rcalf for a while. The BSE crap and Oldtimer's lost but patriotic protectionist attitude will never change, but leadership for primary producers might.

Since BIG C has no cashola and little gas left in the tank, we are tossing around the idea of helping revive another producer group that does have some history in Canada and a lot of similar ideas. Any of you Canucks know much about the Western Stock Growers Association?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Better yet BIG MUDDY, why don't you ask the SSGA or our almighty CCA to conduct a survey of ranchers in Canada to see if they support BSE testing for export marketing purposes?

By the way, there are a few BIG C members who are sitting delegates at ABP and CCA. Do they speak out - yes. Do they have any ability to make change - not a chance.

You know how it works Big Muddy. You pass a resolution in your zone unanimously. It goes to the zone directors to be passed up to the board of directors. If the resolution is lucky enough to make it passed some of the good old boys like yourself (touched by the kiss the packers ass syndrome) it goes to the board at ABP or SSGA if they run the same. The board then decides - and it has nothing to do with the number of people who brought the motion forward in the first place. No democracy left in our current leadership Big Muddy. Or maybe you could show us some and have a vote on BSE testing for export marketing this fall.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
What are you doing sitting at the Zone meetings. If you have the support you can go all the way. That's the way the current leaders got there.

By the way we did support CBEF when they lobbied CFIA for the ability to try a test run for export.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Sorry Big Muddy, I forgot to ad that I did run for ABP. I ran in a zone full of feedlot boys and they didn't like the way I talked. Packer ownership seemed to pay a lot of their bills, and they could care less what the rancher gets for his cull cows. I did not get elected.

I don't want you to think I don't like the feedlot boys. They are cattlemen as much as you and I are cattlemen - but the past number of years has made these two groups of cattlemen become distant and quite often at odds. Ask any feedlot owner what his biggest economic problem is, and 9 times out of 10 he will say calf prices. NOT the value of his fats. Feedlot operators are margin players - just like the packers - if they are not simply contractors. You and I both know that. Yet our ABP/CCA has focused more and more on the issues involving the feeder sector every year. Cudo's to those Cattle feeders. Cudo's for a special place to call their own last year and even more clout in the ABP/CCA. But you have to admit that you and I have become even more adrift as cow calf producers.

Primary producers in Canada need a voice - and one that is not constantly silenced by the stronger voice of the guy who says that high calf prices are his biggest economic concern.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Are you telling me that every ABP zone is run by the cattle feeders?

In Sask. the SSGA is member driven. We apply for check off money for projects such as the super issue of our magazine that we try to get to all cattle producers in the province. Which has got tougher since the privacy act.
We also have a Sask. Cattle feeders that we are working on some issuse together but we have our own organizations.


Has Cam and the other founders of Big C run for ABP?
 
Top