Canadian cows
Now that Molson and Coors have joined forces, there should be a warehouse somewhere full of obsolete advertising paraphernalia namely the toques and scarves that say, “I AM CANADIAN.”
I wonder if softwood lumber makes a good hockey stick.
A stumbling block in the food industry is country of origin labelling. So take some cattle, dress ’em up with toques and scarves, add a hockey stick Ñ handyman’s secret weapon should work Ñ and line them up on the 49th (parallel.)
Throw the puck in the direction of the “Bush.” They are Canadian cows, they’ll know what to do. You guessed it, go after the puck.
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?
This gives you the beef and the lumber over the border.
Now carefully monitor the situation. If this first wave of kamikaze cows don’t return to the face off line for another game of shinny, we’ll know it’s not that the Americans don’t want our beef, they just don’t want to pay for it.
Ñ Harvie Reekie,
Clarksburg, Ont.
More on steak
I wish to clarify my position with regards to a letter I wrote in the March 17 issue of the Western Producer. The letter described my disappointment and anger at having purchased a top sirloin steak from a reputable grocery chain, meat that was so tough it could barely be chewed.
The letter sparked several phone calls, both from producers and consumers. One Alberta gentleman suggested that I find out where the steak originated, that perhaps the steak was a cut imported from New Zealand, Australia or American beef.
When I traced the long dusty trail back to the abattoir, ironically, it was Alberta beef.
One feedlot operator from southeast Saskatchewan hit the nail on the head when he suggested that I had most likely purchased and I quote, “a cut from an old culled cow.”
That same week, I attended a gathering where several people were discussing my letter to the editor. Almost all agreed that in the last year, many of the steaks and roasts they had purchased from a variety of stores were on the tough side.
Another caller from Yorkton phoned and complained that “times were tough for farmers.” I was raised on a Saskatchewan farm. I understand tough times, and tough meat.
Times are also tough for those who buy beef at eight to 12 bucks a pound. I won’t stop buying beef over one or two sinewy cuts, as the thought police refer to them.
However, don’t kid yourself. City folks aren’t as forgiving as I am. Every time someone gets hoodwinked with tough and inferior cuts, they’re looking at alternate sources of meat products. And there is a lot of competition out there.
You have choices. You can turn a blind eye to what’s happening, you can phone and intimidate those consumers who complain. However, my suggestion is that beef producers and their related organizations take a serious look at what’s coming out of meat counters across the country.
In the end, when it’s time to cull ole Bess, the thing to do might be just to take her out to the pasture and shoot her. Of course, that’s assuming that the Liberals haven’t taken our guns away by then.
Ñ John Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
Sure-fire plan
Re: Slaughter plants.
There are people in Saskatchewan that want to build a slaughter plant. That is good. The Saskatchewan government says it will assist these people only if they have a good business plan and a guarantee of cattle. That is good.
To help with a business plan, perhaps the Saskatchewan government could show these people the sure-fire financial plan that SaskTel has with our government. SaskTel has lost money all around the world and now the latest $70 million in B.C. This is all being done with government approval and money.
This is where we should have an inquiry. With the money SaskTel is wasting, we could easily have a slaughter plant. Has former Saskatchewan Wheat Pool management moved into SaskTel offices?
Our politics have become those of a Banana Republic. We now have the street gangs. What else is coming? The government will build a few more government offices and add a few more MLAs and the problem will be solved.
Ñ Joe Woloshyn,
Quill Lake, Sask.
Nero tactics
Some of the farm sale flyers that came this spring are as thick as an old Eaton’s catalogue. It appears economies of scale has not been too successful a philosophy.
For a while, I expected the next tractors built with an elevator to reach the cab, with one wheel in Alberta and one in Saskatchewan.
Over the last few years, several organizations tried to limit production as a means to increase price. Will the economy do for us what we couldn’t do ourselves? This comes with an inherent danger. Will we be able to bring back production after the collapse?
Throughout history, civilizations have collapsed in direct relation to the health of their farming communities and in addition to the depletion of their forests. …
Our federal and provincial governments, along with their corporate friends, used much the same tactics as Nero, that is fiddled while Rome burned.
William Jennings Bryan said, “burn down our cities and leave our farms and they will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and grass will grow in the streets of every city in this country.”
Bryan said this over 100 years ago, but it is just as true today.
A $50 billion farm debt owed by Canadian farmers, and possibly a lot more if the truth was known, and rising at the rate of $3 billion a year.
Not to worry, according to Farm Credit Canada’s John Ryan. They are all making their payments. He and his banker friends are quite unconcerned. But what he didn’t tell us is how many are making their payments out of the proceeds of their auction sales?
How many are making their payments by working off farm, sometimes both spouses? How many at the expense of an education for their children? How many at untold hardships? How many of these loans are to agribusiness, who are doing quite well? How many loans to factory farms that often produce cheap food at the expense of the environment and the quality of the food produced?
Let us hope this man slides out of his ivory tower head first. Perhaps it will knock some sense into him, if not some compassion for his fellow man….
Ñ Peter H. Reese,
Deadwood, Alta.
Top genetics
As a cattleman, I feel compelled to comment on some information that I recently gained in regards to the Calgary Bull Sale.
The high selling bull at this sale was a two-year-old Hereford that sold for $51,000. This bull came from a very reputable breeder at High River, Alta.
The interesting fact is that this animal was purchased by a ranch from Taylor, Nebraska. I’m not a geographer, but I believe that Nebraska is in the United States. I also believe that the American border is closed to live Canadian cattle. Why would an American buy this bull?
The answer is simple. This bull will stay in a Canadian A.I. centre where semen will be collected from him. This semen will in turn be sent to the States and used to breed American cows.
I also have heard reports that R-CALF is fighting to have the border permanently closed to all Canadian cattle, live and boxed. I hope they realize that a permanently closed border must also include no semen, embryos or any other bovine products.
It is clear that the Americans prefer Canadian genetics to improve their cattle herd to try and compete with us in the world market and are willing to spend a lot of money to do it.
Sorry guys, close the border permanently and let’s all get on with our lives. The Americans can also forget about ever getting any breeding stock, semen or embryos from Canada ever again. If our beef is not good enough, neither is the semen from our bulls or the embryos from our cows.
Canada is known for producing some of the best quality beef in the world and we can easily survive with a closed border. The Americans, however, are known for the infamous Texas Longhorns, which may be good for a rodeo, but don’t make a very good steak.
Ñ Curtis Stachniak,
Prud’Homme, Sask.
Same sob story
“If farming was a highly profitable industry, there would be less concern. But after drought, grasshoppers, BSE, trade barriers and weak grain prices, profit is only a memory for many farmers.” (WP editorial, March 24.)
Oh spare me the sob story. No self respecting farm business operator ever admits to making any profit no matter what the circumstances. It’s in the club membership creed. …
So who’s to know or care when there is some rhetoric that “we” can’t make a profit? Who’s we, the pork producer, the broiler, egg and turkey producer, the dairy producer? And I have long passed holding my breath for farm operators to willingly pay for regulatory costs. Why should they unless it’s to their advantage to do so in the competitive marketplace?
Just eat the stuff, it’s safe and good for you, trust me and just cut out and discard the bits you don’t like. No business pays for costs out of charity. They are in business to make a profit of optimizing sales and minimizing costs.
“Other industries can pass regulatory costs to the public by increasing the price of their products, but the value of farmers’ production is usually set on a commodity market over which they have no control.” (WP editorial)
I’ve always wondered just what “other” industries? The turkey, egg, broiler and dairy businesses? Much of Canada’s economic production comes from commodities like coal, copper, nickel and two by fours whose prices come from a market determination. This editorial perpetuates the myth that “we” just don’t have any control over things.
To repeat this mantra that farm producers can’t pass on the cost of doing business is so tiresome but it plays well in the farm constituency who like to think of themselves as victims who are not in control of their business.
Ñ D. A. Taylor,
Spruce Grove, Alta.
State of denial
To add to Richard Pedde’s excellent observations (Open Forum, March 17) not only is the Canadian government through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency impeding growth and progress to Canadian cattle producers, they mask their concern with a $50 million cash injection to another branch of the Liberal sponsorship program, formally known as the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, to find future markets for our BSE-riddled calves.
Insult to injury, we in this country have been blessed with a blueprint for success, in which R-CALF USA is the architect. This group of ranchers has to be admired and respected for their passion to retain their dignity to hold on to what they put their lives into.
Our governments, federal and provincial, are in a comatose state of denial. BSE is a real factor in the global beef industry. Country of origin labelling is a real factor in the global beef industry.
Canada is a big country, perhaps too big. Too many years of eastern Liberal spin, the cheap food policy, the dead Crow Rate, single desk selling, etc. have all contributed to the death of countless prairie farms. Regional indignity validates the exodus.
A merger of Mr. Cam Ostercamp’s vision combined with the legal prowess of Mr. Rick Paskal would be a global first and the envy of all cattle exporting nations, guaranteed clean beef with iron clad stability for its producer. Sending cattle 2,000 miles east makes about as much sense as 200 miles south.
Set it up boys. Blackie, Alta., will do just fine.
Ñ M. E. Szakacs,
Kipling, Sask.
Rural kingdoms
At the recent Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities convention, Neal Hardy and his doughty crew once again kicked up a fuss about the amount that their constituents pay in land taxes for education.
There appears to be no acceptance of a step-by-step change in the tax regime to 60 percent of the cost of education being paid by the province.
They conveniently forget that until 1982, the province did pay 60 percent and 40 percent was paid by land taxes. It was under the Devine Conservative administration that the costs were reversed and 60 percent was then paid by the landowners. And what was Hardy doing while that change took place? He was part of that Devine government.
While most people feel great sympathy for our rural neighbours, what irks us greatly is that Hardy and SARM stubbornly refuse to help themselves and their taxpayers in a most obvious way. They refuse to change from the antiquated system of tiny rural municipalities to the county system….
A county system like Alberta’s would drastically cut the number of paid officials, including mileage paid to over 1,500 councillors plus 267 reeves. Only 30 or so offices would have to be maintained. Purchasing supplies and equipment on a bulk scale would be much cheaper. And there would be dozens of other savings.
It’s amazing that rural people haven’t revolted at the waste and inefficiencies in that long-outdated system. Are Hardy and SARM interested in rural development and an increase in their tax base? …
Instead of fighting the county system, SARM should work with the government to establish counties as quickly as possible. Get into the modern age before rural depopulation completely destroys their way of life.
But I’m afraid it won’t happen. Hardy and SARM seem to want the majority of us taxpayers to help them keep their petty rural kingdoms … their tiny horse-and-buggy operations.
Ñ Randy Nelson,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Promote beef
My name is Breanna Fletcher and I am a third generation farmer/cattle rancher in Smoky Lake, Alta.. I have been in beef 4-H for six years and counting, and am much interested in one day having my own cattle operation.
Today, listening to the radio, I was totally astonished at the decision that the border will not be opening this Monday (March 7, 2005). It makes me both sad and upset to constantly hear negative comments about the Canadian beef industry, which I dearly call my own.
I hate to see my future in the beef industry be torn apart right before my eyes. I think we as Canadians must keep up our loyalty for our country.
I am still waiting for our industry to get back to normal. Until then, I will continue to encourage everyone to promote Canadian beef. I know my family will not give up on Canadian beef. Hopefully Canadians won’t either.
Ñ Breanna Fletcher,
Smoky Lake, Alta.
Vet drugs
On Feb. 18, I received a phone call from Health Canada informing me that we as farmers and ranchers can now import all category II drugs from the U.S. … in a 90-day supply. Basically what the ruling says is that any drug that doesn’t have to be administered or dispensed by a vet is allowable. This is going to be a tremendous savings to the farming community at approximately one-third of the cost here in Canada.
The change in policy was not brought about by your local politicians or some association representing your interests but rather it was made possible by hundreds of farmers and ranchers with a little commonsense talking to the right people.
We now live in a global society where free trade is preached to us daily and only by having a level playing field will we be able to compete and thrive as an agricultural community. Ask your local associations and governments what they have done for you today. I assure you it will be nothing.
Ñ Brian Cross,
Spiritwood, Sask.
Moving cartoon
Thank you for the depiction of God and the slain RCMP officers saluting each other. (Opinion, March 10.)
It was very moving, as was the memorial held in Edmonton.
Thank God that, for once, Canadians were able to say farewell and express gratitude for the officers’ sacrifice in a religious context and put political correctness aside.
Ñ Judy Thorsteinson,
Foam Lake, Sask.
Rail car progress
Finally, after nine years of federal government indecision, it is becoming apparent that the federal government is moving to the next phase with the government hopper cars.
The government has announced that it will start negotiations with the Farmer Rail Car Coalition to turn over ownership of these cars into farmers’ hands for the movement of their own products. I guess many of us who have been involved with this process over the years thought we were always negotiating.
I am sure a number of people still don’t believe this may happen, however it should be pointed out that at the World Trade Organization talks, these government owned cars are proving to be a trade distorting issue.
Funny, isn’t the Mississippi River, which is used to move by barge a vast amount of American grown grain, also a highly subsidized form of transportation? But I guess it’s always different when the Americans are the ones pointing the trade dispute finger.
So now what? How will we govern the FRCC? Will all farmers be represented by the governance model? What will be the in-depth workings of the FRCC business plan? Can these cars be used to give farmers a small stake in the high risk game of grain transportation? Can a commercial working model be chosen so that we as farmers are working with the other players in the grains industry instead of fighting with them?
And does the federal government expect farmers to pay a commercial price for these cars again since we already paid for them through freight rates and taxes?
These questions all need to be asked and solved sooner rather then later. …
One thing I know is definitely clear; all farmers need to be on the same page on this issue. This is not the time for a philosophical war of words between fractious farm groups. Let’s learn a lesson from the BSE issue. Everyone outside of our borders is out to beat us in the grain markets, we must move together ….
I firmly believe we wouldn’t have a second chance on this issue. No, this is our last chance. Railways, grain company executives and international competitors all believe we will blow this opportunity. Let’s prove them wrong….
Ñ Micheal Halyk,
Melville, Sask.
Mess mishandled
When you look back at this whole BSE mess, one almost has to laugh at the bumbling, stumbling way this whole thing has been handled.
Our federal government has been woefully inadequate in its handling of the whole affair. From the very beginning it has been clear that the feds are willing to stick their heads in the sand and let the U.S. and its interests have their way with Canadian farmers and ranchers.
Why do our provincial and federal governments insist on throwing money at Band-Aid programs while the real problems go unrecognized? …
We have to realize that no matter what it looks like, the U.S. government does not want our live cattle going over the border.
How in the world does one judge from Billings, Montana, make a ruling overthrowing everything that the United States Department of Agriculture has done? We cannot continue looking across the border at the golden carrot they are dangling. What we have to do to get our industry back on track is the following:
1. Legislate that no live trade in cattle will occur. This will get Canadian interest out of the planning stage and into the building stage. The sooner we slaughter all our beef and get our beef going into direct competition with the U.S., the better off we are.
2. Have separate plants for cattle over 30 months. All cattle slaughtered in these plants should be tested for BSE, not only for our exports but also for our own domestic consumption. Our consumers in Canada need to know there is absolutely no way that the beef they are eating is not safe.
3. A floor price must be implemented so that our existing plants cannot rape the producer while the transition is taking place.
4. Government agencies, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, must give full co-operation to the proposed plants.
The circus hoops they have been making our Canadian proposals jump through have been nothing short of ludicrous. It really makes one wonder what side they are on.
While this all may seem like a drastic step, it is all absolutely necessary to get our industry back on track and keep it there for the long haul.
Please Mr. Martin and Mr. Mitchell, sit up and pay attention. These similar views are echoing across auction markets, meetings, ranches and farms all over. If something like this is not being done, you are outright selling us to the Americans. Do something now and not later, after it is too late.
Ñ Leon Stang,
Cactus Lake, Sask.
Rabies & BSE
We can test raccoons but not cattle?
The government’s inability to take the bull by the horns in blanket testing cattle for BSE in Canada shows the serious disconnect between public policy priorities and government spending.
The Ontario and federal governments are spending millions of dollars annually on rabies research, testing and control, although rabies is the lowest public health risk in North America.
A major partner in the rabies program, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, claims that science does not support the testing of all cattle for BSE. So, just where is the science that supports the need for this same agency to test thousands of wild animals for rabies in Ontario where almost all, or 99.8 percent, of the animals tested have proven to be healthy?
Why is it that the CFIA supports the need for testing thousands of raccoons that have had no contact with humans but will not test all cattle for BSE where there is 100 percent human exposure?
In terms of economic costs, blanket-testing cattle for BSE is imperative given the number of markets that will otherwise remain closed to Canadian beef.
Previously, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency only tested wildlife for rabies if there had been human contact. Inexplicably, this policy changed during the 1990s, at a time when there was the least degree of risk given the significant decline in cases of rabies.
That this agency became an independent cost-recovery operation around this time certainly raises the level of cynicism. Adding to this is the fact that the CFIA states its cost of testing raccoons for rabies is $200-$300 per animal while it costs only $30 per animal to test cattle for BSE. …
Efforts through Freedom of Information to learn more about the rabies program have proven futile. Prohibitive fees, delays and unjustified exemptions confirms that the rabies program, with partners such as the CFIA and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, is a particularly secretive, cozy and unaccountable one that is in desperate need of review….
Politicians need to rein in the bureaucrats and get back into the driver’s seat in determining public policy priorities.
Ñ Donna DuBreuil,
President, Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre,
Ottawa, Ont.
Food for thought
Where exactly within the fabric of our society does agriculture and the farmer actually fit?
Are we considered workers or labourers? To a great degree we do work on our farms, so we can surely say yes.
Really, though, the true answer is no. Within our society, each and every other labourer at some time or another has gotten cost of living increases, whereas we in agriculture have never seen a single increase due to cost of living. …
If we are not workers or labourers then truly we must fit as a business. Over the past decade one question within surveys asks: do you consider your farm as a way of life or a business? Yes, more farmers are saying that they are a business.
Again, the true answer is no. Why? Take a look at any business within your local community….What do they all have in common? Every one of these businesses without exception have the ability to put the cost of production into the costs of their products.
Therein is the basis of the problem resulting in so many farmers forced into early retirement. In Barry Wilson’s “Concession on CAIS” article (WP, March 17) Wayne Easter is quoted as saying that CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization) is a safety net and not meant to cover production. How very true.
But CAIS is also flawed as there is no mechanism to cover ever-increasing costs of living just as the marketplace does also. …
Society appears to be sending the signal that primary food production is of very low importance. I wonder just how long would society’s people exist without food?
Society in the past has existed without uranium, diamonds, gold, potash and crude just to name a few. But the very item that sustains life, food, has in history caused the greatest upheaval most particularly when you don’t have it any more….
Ñ Delwyn J. J. Jansen
LeRoy, Sask.
Insuring losses
I see in the March 10 Western Producer that the federal and provincial agriculture ministers are really trying to come up with an alternative to the deposit required of the farmers to participate in the CAIS program.
They say we need to be active participants and will still need some form of up-front obligation.
The problem is, the program is being designed by politicians and bureaucrats who get a regular paycheque every month along with regular pay increases and don’t have anything invested but their minds and can move from job to job without affecting their income, so they look at farming the same way.
But farmers have millions invested in their operation and are obligated to stay connected to it even without making a deposit in a very poor CAIS program.
The concept of CAIS is based on a reference margin using a rolling Olympic average over the past five years. In the grains and oilseed sector the average has been going down for the last 20 years, so we are in effect insuring ourselves into a loss situation.
The bigger problem is the North American cheap food policy. The rural sector has been subsidizing the urban sector with food sold at below the cost of production for a long time and the results are showing up in foreclosures and a doubling of the prairie farm debt over the past 10 years.
Until the costs of production are covered the safety nets are not going to solve the problems with agriculture. We need either more for our production or our input costs lowered, otherwise agriculture in Canada will go down.
The crisis is real, the solution will also have to be real.
Ñ Bernie von Tettenborn,
Round Hill, Alta.
