Cattle levy under scrutiny

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Published: January 31, 2008

INNISFAIL, Alta. – The Alberta cattle industry is considering slaughtering a sacred cow.

Beef producers have been asked if the $3 nonrefundable checkoff paid to the Alberta Beef Producers each time an animal is sold should continue to be nonrefundable.

It’s part of the beef producers’ regulatory review held every five years when producers are asked if changes are needed in the organization.

Adrienne Waller, ABP’s legal counsel, said it’s not the goal of the review to decide the issue, but to gauge the extent that a refundable checkoff is an issue for producers.

Read Also

Robert Andjelic, who owns 248,000 acres of cropland in Canada, stands in a massive field of canola south of Whitewood, Sask. Andjelic doesn't believe that technical analysis is a useful tool for predicting farmland values | Robert Arnason photo

Land crash warning rejected

A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models

“If it’s serious enough, the board’s option is to hold another plebiscite,” said Waller.

It’s not the first time the checkoff has been discussed. In 1992 there was a constitutional challenge of the checkoff.

Two years later, a plebiscite was held and 52.7 percent of the 7,400 producers voted to keep the $1.50 checkoff.

Rick Pascal, a feedlot operator and member of the Alberta Cattle Feeder Association, told the Lethbridge meeting that major changes must be made to the group’s structure to make it more relevant.

“Don’t make us go to a vote. There’s a significant amount of discontent in the industry,” said Pascal.

Russ Pickett of Bassano, Alta., believes a refundable checkoff would make the organization more accountable.

If producers didn’t feel they were getting value, they could request all or some of their checkoff back.

Max Tateson of Tilley, Alta., said he finds it difficult to point to successes achieved by the organization.

“It doesn’t seem like I’m getting much bang for my buck,” he said.

However, former chair Larry Helland said the cattle organization couldn’t function if producers started requesting their check-off money back.

“You’re fooling yourself if you think you can operate an industry with a refundable checkoff,” said Helland.

With some operations feeding 50,000 head a year, a $150,000 refund would put a big dent in the organization’s $14 million budget.

John deGroot said ABP is a strong organization because of its bank account. A refundable checkoff would create a weak organization unable to lobby government or promote the beef industry.

“The strength is in the money.”

At the Innisfail, Alta., meeting the following evening, the discussion wasn’t on a refundable checkoff, but a directional checkoff, where individual producers could decide which cattle organization they wanted their money funnelled toward.

Doug Price of Acme said strong funding is critical for the health of a vibrant cattle industry, but he wanted the option of where to direct his money.

“To have a mandatory checkoff that goes to one organization, I think we can improve on that,” he said.

Waller said there is a type of directional spending now within the organization. Alberta Beef Producers sends $1 of every $3 collected to the Beef Information Centre, the national cattle marketing agency.

About $1.2 million is given to the Canada Beef Export Federation to develop overseas beef markets. The Alberta Cattle Feeders Association has received research money from the beef producers.

“What directional does is say ‘we really support a nonrefundable checkoff because we don’t want the money to disappear, but we want it to be spent by our self-interest groups,’ ” said Waller.

Other livestock organizations, such as deer and elk groups, that have refundable checkoffs are struggling because they don’t have enough money, she said.

Comments from five regulatory meetings and mail-in comments will be forwarded to a committee.

Suggested changes will be forwarded to the board and voted on by delegates at the semi-annual meeting in June.

explore

Stories from our other publications