Yet another farm safety net review One of the great agricultural pastimes in this country is debate over farm safety nets. We’re at it again. At last week’s meeting in Toronto of federal, provincial and territorial agriculture ministers, there was a new commitment to consult with producers and farm groups on business risk management programs.You may remember that the federal Conservatives initially came to power with a promise to replace the CAIS program. Instead, they tinkered with it a bit and changed the name to Agri-Stability. Neither CAIS, nor the new Agri-Stability is able to deal with prolonged industry downturns like the ones in beef and hogs. There are a myriad of other problems too. It’s far too complicated and it doesn’t provide fair treatment to producers who do their own income stabilization by having more than one farm enterprise. Before CAIS, there was AIDA which operated in much the same way. We’ve been on the same track for a long time. Now the Ministers are going to consult and report back at their next meeting in July. There may be a move to implement livestock price insurance and there may be tinkering with Agri-Stability, but don’t hold your breath waiting for major changes. Governments do not seem willing or able to consider anything other than income stabilization as the main farm program. As long as that continues, any changes will be largely cosmetic. I’m Kevin Hursh.
February 7, 2010
I’m a climate change expert and I’m here to help you On Friday, I heard a presentation by a bright, young woman who is a PhD student at McGill University. Bano Mehdi has two science degrees and extensive work experience on climate change issues. Her goal is to become a leading expert in the field of agriculture and climate change. She presented the usual data showing a warming world and making the link to greenhouse gas emissions. Where she raised my ire and the ire of other producers in the room was when she tried to extrapolate what climate change might mean for Canadian farmers and what we should be doing to adapt. The fancy models suggest the Canadian Prairies may be warmer but wetter in the years ahead. Will it be so warm that crops shrivel in the summer or will we benefit from a longer growing season? Will the extra precipitation shown by the models be enough to compensate for the higher temperatures? No one knows. The scientific intentions may be honourable, but it’s tough to take these vague climate forecasts seriously. Scientists have difficulty predicting next week’s weather. The seasonal, three-month forecasts are scarcely better than flipping a coin or reading the Farmers’ Almanac. Nebulous climate forecasts for five, ten and twenty years into the future are of very little practical use to producers. I’m Kevin Hursh.
February 4, 2010
The $31.70 per cow problem needs to be addressed Many people in the cattle business love to hate the big packing companies. For that reason, it’s difficult to garner support for paying compensation to the packers for the extra costs they incur when they slaughter cattle over thirty months of age. It costs an estimated $31.70 more to slaughter an older animal in Canada as compared to the U.S. This is due to the more stringent Canadian rules for disposing of Specified Risk Materials. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association says that due to the differential, an increasing number of cows are going to the U.S. for slaughter. To fill the gap, Canada is importing an increasing amount of beef from Australia, New Zealand and South America. For 2010, beef imports from these countries will likely approach the 76,000 tonne limit. There will be pressure to issue supplementary import permits. It’s very difficult for Canadian packers to compete for Canadian cull animals when there’s a $30 plus disadvantage built into the system. It’s reasonable for the federal government to provide compensation to make up this difference and paying the money to big and small slaughter facilities across the country is the logical way to fix the inequity. It’s difficult to know how much of this money would end up in the hands of producers, but it does no one any good to export Canadian cull animals when the jobs and the beef should be staying here. I’m Kevin Hursh.
February 3, 2010
Baby boomers are not like their parents The Canadian Farm Business Management Council is hosting its annual Managing Excellence in Agriculture Conference in Saskatoon. The opening speaker last night was the renowned futurist Dr. Lowell Catlett from New Mexico State University. Catlett explains how the world has changed over the past generation and how that is impacting all facets of agriculture. The parent’s of baby boomers led a life with few frills. The baby boomers are much more affluent and therefore our demands and expectations are far different. Rather than just nutritious food for sustenance, there’s demand for organic, free range, slow food, food with a smaller carbon footprint, and food that can address health problems. Twenty years ago, the number one determinant for ranchland values in the western side of the U.S. and Canada was the quantity and quality of the forage the land could produce. Now the number one price determinant is proximity to a destination resort. Lowell Catlett says the world has abundance the likes of which it has never seen. The biggest profits won’t be in basic food commodities. The big money will be in the products that cater to the values and the whims of affluent consumers. I’m Kevin Hursh.
February 2, 2010
R-CALF points to Canadian beef subsidies Canada has filed a WTO complaint against the American imposition of COOL - country of origin labeling. The main advocate of this expensive, protectionist legislation is the farm group known as R-CALF. If you can risk raising your blood pressure, listen to what R-CALF is now saying about Canadian beef production. In a letter sent to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative, R-CALF says Canada should be considered in violation of the WTO because we continue to subsidize our cattle and beef sector in order to penetrate the U.S. market. According to R-CALF, Canada is using “its treasury to out-compete independent U.S. cattle producers, whose prices are depressed because Canada is unjustly and artificially propping-up its cattle supplies beyond what the available market can bear.” R-CALF has compiled a long list of our subsidies. This includes some loan programs in Manitoba, the CAIS program and a bunch of programs that date back to when the BSE crisis first began. It would be great to have a proper analysis of Canadian support for the beef sector versus what U.S. producers receive. Zealots like those in R-CALF probably wouldn’t believe it anyway, but it would be useful to have a true comparison for people on both sides of the border who like to base their opinions on facts. I’m Kevin Hursh.
Archives
Kevin Hursh's daily agricultural report is heard Monday through Friday on Swift Current (CKSW), Shaunavon (CJSN), Moose Jaw (CHAB), Estevan (CJSL), Weyburn (CFSL), Rosetown/Kindersley (1330/1210), Lloydminster (CKSA) and Melfort (CJVR).
