Utterly ridiculous
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, when anyone of us had a dream of starting a certain venture and we couldn’t raise equity money, we could go to the government and convince them to take just a little off everyone to carry out our dream?
This is what happened in the case of Ranchers Choice Beef Co-op Ltd. The government has created a compulsory checkoff of $3 per head of cattle marketed in Manitoba to develop a slaughter enhancement fund.
Provincial abattoirs need not apply. They are just collectors of the head tax. Federal plants are only operating at 70 percent of capacity at the moment. There is already a surplus of hooks in the North American market.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
I give full credit to individuals who initially started out with a dream to have a Manitoba owned slaughter plant. I’ve had dreams also, some successful, some not, but at no time was the taxpayer or other cattle producers of Manitoba asked to prop up my dream.
These are the facts: a) Manitoba producers were not prepared to inject cash equity even with tax incentives from the federal government. b) Manitoba producers would not commit sufficient livestock to the proposed plant in lieu of cash. c) The Manitoba government injected money to purchase equipment before producers had made a financial or livestock commitments. I give the government full credit for doing this.
The government had the perfect out when producer equity and/or commitments of livestock were not forthcoming so the equipment could be sold and the losses tallied. That would have been smart.
Instead the government decided to create a head tax from all producers and money from the taxpayers of Manitoba until they tire of it.
After that time someone will purchase the plant at 10 cents on the dollar. What a way to start a business. This is why I call it utterly ridiculous.
– Harvey Dann,
Winnipeg, Man.
Not price setters
I’m a broiler chicken hatching egg farmer living just outside Hagersville, Ont….
I feel compelled to write you with regard to the article “Do we have a cheap food policy?” (WP, March 30.)
I wasn’t aware that farmers set the price in the stores. It seems anytime we as Canadians want to complain about farmers, we love to go the stores and beat them over the head with the highest retail prices we can find.
I just dropped our 15-year-old daughter off at the IGA in town where she works part-time after school and weekends. I also thought that in addition to grocery shopping I would do a little price checking. I found large eggs for $2.09 per dozen. I also found omega 3 large eggs for $3.89 per dozen and free range eggs for $4.44 a dozen. I even found organic large eggs for $5.89 per dozen. Quite a selection for a small town in rural Ontario.
I bought a chicken for tomorrow night’s supper at $4.44 per kilogram. He’s a big boy weighing in at three kg and my next door neighbours … just happen to be chicken producers and they are getting about $1.25 per kg for this bird when they sell it.
With processing line speeds reaching 125-150 chickens per minute, how did this price ever get to $4.44? Must be those damned chicken farmers….
Finally I ended up at the milk counter where I bought my four litre bag of good old Hewitt’s Dairy two percent at $1.12 a litre, 10 percent more than milk in Grand Forks, South Dakota but made at our own Hewitt’s Dairy right here in Hagersville, a dairy that’s been in the Hewitt family for generations, where people still line up at the dairy bar until 11 p.m. for ice cream on a warm summer night.
For the extra 10 percent, I’m sticking with Hewitt’s.
Walking past the water and juice aisle at the store, I couldn’t help but notice that one litre of Dasani water, bottled by Coca Cola, and one litre of Aquafina water, bottled by Pepsi, were both selling for $1.26 a litre. It must be the water farmers making all that money.
When Mr. Rice uses examples of our products being further processed cheese slices, shredded deli turkey breast, the prices double. If the milk is produced competitively, is it the farmer’s fault that shredded mozzarella is priced so high? If the turkey farmer gets $1.60 per kg for his turkey, how does the breast meat get to $23.12 per kg? …
My concern is this continuous farmer bashing farmer in this race to the bottom regarding food prices. Once again this week there were large farm protests in Ottawa and Saskatchewan where people in desperate trouble are trying to get a government’s attention and yet farmers continue to fight off attacks from within.
I believe that I’m a good farmer and yes, I do make money most years, not the kind of money alluded to in your article, but enough to pay the bills, help put the kids through school and hopefully have a decent vacation every year. I believe I’ve got what most of my fellow farmers are trying to get – a fair return on their investment of time and money.
– Paul Leatherbarrow,
Hagersville, Ont.
Second look
I felt the need to respond to a Mr. Michael Hicks of Glaslyn, Sask., under the heading “Inferior program” (Open Forum, April 6.)
He uses the analogy of buying a vehicle versus buying crop insurance in Saskatchewan. He ends by saying he wants to buy a Toyota. I say go for it. Buy your Toyota, but expect to pay the full cost of that vehicle.
The facts: All administrative costs in running the crop insurance programs in all provinces of Canada are: federal government pays 60 percent; provincial government pays 40 percent; producer pays zero percent.
All premium costs associated with Saskatchewan Crop Insurance are shared: federal and provincial governments pay 60 percent; producer pays 40 percent.
Now let’s get back to buying that Toyota and, for arguments sake, both the full cost of that vehicle is $25,000 and the full cost of your crop insurance is $25,000. Both have an administrative cost of $2,000 included.
What is the outcome of using this analogy? Well sir, that new Toyota should cost you:
List price = $25,000
Administration costs
at 100 percent = $2,000
Net cost: = $23,000
Premium discount at
60 percent = $13,800
Total cash cost: = $9,200
If you can find a dealer willing to sell that Toyota to you at that price, let me know. I want one.
No one, and I mean no one else in our society gets their insurance at such subsidized prices except farmers and still you … complain.
The public purses of Canada and Saskatchewan collectively pay $15,800 of your $25,000 bill. Could there also be an analogy here to biting the hand that feeds you, or welfare bum, or I’m a farmer, you owe me a living on my terms? Think about it.
– J. Kuziak,
Theodore, Sask.
B.C. Rail missed
A good number of times over the years Mr. Feeny, of CN Rail, has made statements regarding rail service or the lack thereof. Many times he either denies that a problem exists or puts blame on someone or something other than CN Rail.
I admit that I do not know all the ins and outs of the transportation industry, but I certainly am aware of our local transportation problems.
When our government first talked about handing B.C. Rail over to CN, most people I knew were against it.
In conversations with our local MLA, I suggested that within a year we would be experiencing the same lousy service that the Prairies were receiving. I was wrong. It didn’t take a year; it took less than a month.
Before CN, when the grain companies needed cars spotted, they had the cars within three days. Since CN took over, it takes 12 to 15 days or more.
With B.C. Rail, when the local elevators received shipping orders and cars weren’t immediately available, the orders were left here because they were reasonably sure the cars would be delivered within a short time.
With CN, now if there are no cars here, the orders are cancelled because no one knows when cars might arrive.
B.C. Rail had a fleet of high-volume cars for oats shipments. These cars are now scattered all over North America. The cars CN is supplying only hold 77 to 80 tonnes of oats. Because the American customers buy oats in 90 tonne minimum contracts, the suppliers are penalized when a shipment is less than 90 tonnes.
This all translates into less returns and lost opportunities for local producers.
In recent times it appears CN is not denying or assigning blame. They are not even interested in discussing anything.
So Mr. Feeny, your attitude at CN seems to be, “we have a monopoly, so tell someone who cares.”
– Roger Brandl,
Fort St. John, B.C.
Aid folly
Two items regarding Africa’s problems in the Western Producer, April 13, illustrate the folly of some efforts to help the people of Africa by inadequately informed do-gooders.
The efforts to help Kenya by a Norwegian fish project was a failure because the ethnic people concerned were livestock “farmers” with little education.
Although the region and people concerned were well known to (former) president Daniel arap Moi, he was more concerned with building the most costly palace in Africa than he was with helping cattle people.
It is extremely difficult to interest or train such cattle people to become fishermen.
The second article regarding Africa, which suggests that increased use of fertilizer will solve the food production problem in Africa, is laughable. The possibilities of Africa being able to purchase the billions of dollars worth of fertilizer needed is simply silly. If fertilizer use is to be increased in Africa, most of it will have to be obtained as a type of food aid.
The prospects of Africans being able to spend vast amounts of money to buy fertilizers are extremely low. …
Without programs to reduce population increases in Africa,… development assistance will be of little benefit. …
– C. F. Bentley,
Edmonton, Alta.
