The report stated that 45 per cent of organic produce randomly tested by the CFIA showed traces of pesticides. Organic industry spokespeople were quick to point fingers elsewhere in an effort to deflect the bad news away from themselves. The reality is the industry has always known that residue testing was the weak link in their marketing efforts. That’s why virtually every organic marketing and lobby group in North America fought to not have mandatory residue testing as part of any certification process.

It’s worse in Canada where the CFIA does not even have threshold or testing clauses (it seems to be at their theoretical discretion) in its Canada Organic certification standards. At least with USDA organic standards testing and pesticide thresholds are addressed. It makes you wonder why the CFIA carried out the secret tests and then forced the CBC to use the Access to Information Act to access the information. I would suggest that with no legal requirement requiring testing, the CFIA may well stop further secret testing to avoid attracting this type of media attention.

The organic industry doesn’t help its cause by blaming the testing results on everything except possible fraud by some of its own growers and marketers. They would boost their credibility by seriously advocating a testing program that deals with the residue reality and shows a willingness to improve the situation. People can be very understanding if one admits there is a problem and then works on a resolution. For instance, if imported organic products are the culprit in high pesticide residues, then endorse a program that sets pesticide thresholds that cannot be exceeded at the grower/importer level, and not just promises.

From the Grainews website: Natural may be different, but not better

What about double testing at the grower and retail level to see if contamination occurs along the marketing chain? Being proactive would bring much needed transparency to organic marketing.

The organic industry appears to accept that the residue levels that were found are extremely low and pose no health risk. But that’s also true of almost all non-organic regular food products. It’s rather disingenuous to state that regardless of the testing results, organic food has lower levels of residues than regular food, when the testing is in minuscule parts per million and even billion.

In the bigger picture, honest labelling should be the goal of the food industry and that includes the organic sector. For many food products, it’s not possible to make claims that they are pesticide free, GMO free, hormone free. This testing report proves that point. Will the entire marketing chain collapse and consumers revolt if we had mandatory labels that stated that a food product may contain certain chemicals, GMOs, additives, whatever, but are perfectly safe to eat? What a giant step to product awareness that would be for the consumer. However, I fear that in some areas of food marketing, perception is still more important than transparency.

will.verboven@fbcpublishing.com

The post Organic industry gets uncomfortable news appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The underlying thrust to their recommendations (strawmanbeef.ca) is that they are doable, which is critical in keeping any process like this alive and moving forward. One shudders to think of the shelves filled with dusty reports on every aspect of agriculture that went nowhere simply because the goals were too vague and no action process was put into place. This report is clear-cut as to what to do next and who should be doing and when. That cleverly puts the impetus on every sector of the industry to participate, since anyone opposed to the process will be conspicuous by their absence.

To lead the process the report recommends the establishment of a “Council of Beef Leaders” and it includes all the players, except in my view, the one that if needed could keep the process moving forward with carrots and sticks. I cite the need for provincial/federal government participation. Understandably there are political optics involved with formal participation, but an unofficial presence is surely feasible. It wouldn’t be the first time government observers were kept in the loop.

The need for such participation is because governments hold the powers that can make or break this type of long-term industry-building process.

The report makes recommendations about funding the long-term process of industry development, and that invariably involves checkoff sensitivities. The straw men were wise to tackle this minefield right off the start. But the reality is that governments either plant the mines or are able to sweep the field clear for safe passage — it all depends on which side of the issue one resides. What would give this process a real push is if government formally supported the need for mandatory checkoffs to drive the recommendations and long-term development. If nothing else that would rattle the cynics and those who felt safe behind by the walls of the status quo.

Frankly, such a radical move would be enlightened indeed, in pushing a tradtionally minded industry into real action. I expect that with the checkoff sword hanging over their heads, many on the council would find the energy and courage to move the process forward.

It should be noted that the cattle and beef industries in competing countries like Australia and New Zealand seemed to have found a way to harness their mandatory checkoffs for the greater good. Surely the Canadian industry can find a way to learn from their experience.

Another recommendation was to move forward with BIXS 2.0. This is another doable action that can put a whole new underpinning to information flow. I expect there are few in the industry who do not support a superior flow of information up and down the chain. The amazing part is that virtually everyone can benefit from the flow. Surely the technology exists that can protect privacy, but the reality is that same technology can make the information even more valuable, and isn’t that what everyone wants? This is one recommendation that the industry and the council can actually carry out and right away. Just do it!

Another recommendation from the report points out the need for industry communication. That’s an issue that most organizations have grappled with for the past century and have yet to find the magic wand that can achieve that most elusive goal. The straw man team by accident or design (I suspect the latter) put together industry meetings in Toronto and Calgary that included reps from every sector and ideology. There is nothing like putting a big, diverse, sometimes grumpy family in a room and making them talk to each other over what they have in common. Heaven forbid, harmony and hope might just break out. That meeting process absolutely needs to continue.

As to putting together an industry communication plan that works — that’s easy. Many industry organizations and companies employ talented professional communication people. How about locking them all together with some ag ad agencies folks in a room and not letting them out until they come up with a plan? They have the incentive to come up with a scheme.

The cattle and beef industry needs to continue the momentum created by the straw man process. Sure other industry summits and roundtables have come and gone, few have much future except as gabfests. But they have served as a learning experience which has helped guide this process. One can’t help but notice that a number of agencies, companies and government sources have come forth to support this project with funding. There is a message in that support. Those folks believe in the future of the cattle and beef industry in this country and want to see it prosper and grow.

The post Editorial: Straw man report challenges the industry to take action appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The idea was first broached around 20 years ago, but under different names. The venerable Western Stock Growers’ Association, who has championed the cause for many years, has called it Environmental Goods and Services. A past Alberta Environment report called it Ecosystem Goods and Services. Interestingly, an Internet search finds different descriptions and assumptions as to what EGS means — it seems to depend on the organization and its intentions.

The Miistakis Institute of the University of Calgary defines EGS “as the economic and social benefits humans derive, directly and indirectly, from the natural environment or Natural Capital, such as clean air, healthy soil, biodiversity, and water quality and quantity.” The institute has conducted research in the nature and value of EGS. Landowners, farmers and ranchers like such research because if a per-hectare value can be placed on EGS, then there is the potential of obtaining an additional revenue flow from one’s property.

Visions of being paid to watch grass grow come to mind.

However, any such research has not been an easy exercise because of the environmental variables from one location to another. To my knowledge, no research report has stuck its neck out and stated EGS is worth, for instance, $50 per hectare. Clearly, it would set a precedent. From a landowner perspective, it would be a perfect flag to wave in front of activist green groups, governments, wildlife organizations, fish and game associations, and the urban public. The message might run along the lines of, ‘Pay for the EGS we’re now providing for free or shut up.’

One can appreciate that none of the aforementioned groups really want to go down that trail. If you admit farmers and ranchers are providing ecological services for free, it’s not as easy to criticize the environmental impact of modern agriculture. But the current approach is not fair or progressive, particularly if one wants to enhance environmental flora and fauna.

A sliding scale of EGS values and payments would go a long way to seeing a remarkable change in the quality of ecosystems in many areas. For instance, if a base price was $10 per hectare and was increased gradually to much higher levels if certain standards and improvements were met, you’d see conservation measures quickly adopted. I expect even endangered species would be coming back from the dead if the right incentives were applied.

How could anyone be opposed to such a positive goal?

Perhaps there needs to be a summit held of all the stakeholders in EGS to begin taking the concept to the next level. Sure it’s blazing a new trail, but it could be a win-win situation for all and in particular, the long-suffering environment.

The post Editorial: The time for EGS is long overdue appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Alas, that’s rarely the case as our system continues to be based on the rewards and cruelties of supply and demand. Throw in the trials and tribulations of weather and we have business as usual in agriculture. However, for all its vicissitudes, the system works, and amazingly, continues to feed the world.

In 2013, most Alberta crop producers had one of their best years ever. Considering the size of the province, and its different climactic and soil zones, usually some weather calamity hits some farmers somewhere. But this past year saw consistently good harvests across the province, even in the Peace River district — which from personal experience seems to endure a lot more bad years than good ones.

The issue now seems to be moving the bumper crop of cereals and oilseeds to export facilities, which not surprisingly have become plugged. There doesn’t seem to be a solution, but looking at it from the outside one ponders what temporary measures could be used. Of course, the problem always is at what cost.

For instance, potash exports seem to be slowing — could not any idled potash hopper rail cars be leased for a short-term basis? Vancouver has one of the largest coal-handling terminals in the world — could perhaps a small portion of it be used to load a few dozen grain ships directly from rail cars? In the past, there was much talk of using American West Coast ports to export Canadian grain. Whatever happened to that idea?

I would think with the right financial incentive these ideas could suddenly become viable. But I suspect no one from grower to exporter wants to incur any extra costs — so it looks like a ‘grin and bear it’ situation for shipping grain in 2014. I expect as spring comes closer, there is going to be a lot of cheap barley for sale straight from any piles still left on the ground.

It was a different story for the livestock business in 2013. It was a good year for the cow-calf producer with good feed and forage crops, again, virtually everywhere. For the feedlot sector, it was a completely different story, unless you were a custom feeder, most operators lost money consistently almost every month of the year. It would seem timely hedging and patient bankers are all that kept many operators in business. True to form for the gamblers in that business, many figure that cheap corn and barley supplies will turn their operation around. You have to admire their bottomless optimism.

For primary producers, a money-losing feedlot sector is always an ominous sign of bad prices to come. Yet in one of those curious market quirks, calf prices remain steady. However, with the spread in the basis, primary producers figure they are losing out on even better prices. Market crystal-ball gazers maintain that although lower feed prices are welcome, a steady decline in the North American cow herd will be affecting price psychology for years to come. Significant exports of feeder cattle to the U.S. are an indicator of what may well become a much bigger trend. COOL, of course, hangs over the industry’s head.

The hog industry in 2013 has seen a few flurries of profitability, and at least seems to have stabilized. There appears to be 300 significant hog producers left standing in Alberta after 10 years of downsizing. Cheap feed may help those determined survivors, but there is cheap feed in every hog production area. Plans to resuscitate the industry have come and gone — its future remains tenuous.

Lamb production, which was the darling of the livestock business for a few years because of high prices, came down to earth in 2013. The processor and consumer threshold of price pain had been crossed and that industry is also back to price reality. One hope is that there are now some successful large-scale producers in business in Western Canada. That hasn’t happened for over 80 years, and would be a good sign for the industry.

Much has been heard this year about the tentative Canada-Europe free trade agreement. I’ve acknowledged the potential of the agreement in past columns, but cautioned that it’s far from a done deal. I’d once again note that Europe is already well supplied with everything it needs and wants by longtime suppliers, both domestic and foreign. If a fair agreement is ever signed, Canadian exports will increase, but it will be a hard fight to dislodge traditional suppliers.

The draft South Saskatchewan Regional Plan was released in 2013, and as expected, proved to be somewhat vague and also disappointingly naive in some perspectives of agriculture. The absence of any vision or genuine recognition of irrigation agriculture in the plan is a real message for that sector and agricultural development in general. One fears these regional plans are going to be dominated by urban-based environmental and recreational interests.

One idea may be to get the ag industry unified on the issue in a similar fashion as the straw men did with their beef industry initiative. We need such leaders and promoters for a full court PR press to protect ag interests within the context of these regional plans. Green and wildlife groups have the money and expertise to overwhelm the direction of the draft plans and regional meetings. More plans are expected to be released in 2014, of particular interest to the ag sector will be the Red Deer River watershed plan.

Floods were another major story in 2013, although the impact on ag production was limited. But it showed a real need for better flood control measures, which could include more dams and reservoirs that could have an impact on the ag industry. The problem, as always, with floods is that last year’s event will be forgotten until the next catastrophe. It seems to be human nature. Commonsense ideas, such as diversionary pipelines and floodways, are already being dismissed as too costly and impractical.

It was a good and interesting year and one wonders how 2014 could top 2013. One way or another something will. It’s just the nature of this wonderful business. Happy New Year.

The post Editorial: It’s been a good year for almost everyone appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

It’s the consequence of the refundable cattle checkoff, a measure that was part of Bill 43, which is now almost four years old. At ABP’s recent annual general meeting, there were a number of resolutions demanding the provincial government reinstate the non-refundable checkoff. No wonder — ABP has seen a whopping 30 per cent (and growing) checkoff refund request.

At that rate it’s starting to have some real impact, as reserves have been depleted to keep the operation going. When budget problems arise, the usual mantra one hears is that ABP will just have to make more cutbacks. That’s usually directed at administration costs, which many producers see as too big and fat. But that can only go so far. There comes a time when cutbacks are going to have real impact on services and programs.

In fact, the organization has already reduced some funding for assorted programs and research projects. That has serious consequences as many of those activities are funded with matching government grants. What has also become serious is the financial consequences on the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) to which ABP has been the main contributor. It should be noted that the mandatory national $1 checkoff does not cover any of the expenses of operating the CCA. The problem for ABP is it has agreed to pay a proportional share of the CCA budget. That share is not based on the retained per-head checkoff income and means the CCA share is consuming more ABP budget even as checkoff income declines because of refunds.

At the rate the decline is going, most ABP income will soon be going to maintain the CCA. That caught the attention of many delegates and there was a resolution to deal with that trend. A meeting of the financial officers of the CCA and its provincial members has been called. However, I expect it will not go well for the CCA as other provinces will be in no mood to ante up more cash, even though many of them have non-refundable checkoffs.

After all, they’ll likely argue, it’s not their fault that Alberta went to a refundable checkoff.

However, the reality is if Alberta can’t meet its financial contribution to the national organization, there will be consequences to the operation of the CCA and its activities. Considering further COOL battles and ongoing market-access negotiations, this couldn’t have come at a worse time for the cattle industry.

Most folks who have any understanding of the machiavellian politics of the Alberta cattle industry pretty well knew this was going to happen. Most of the checkoff refund requests are coming from big feedlot operators. That was entirely predictable as that sector has fought and lobbied long and hard for a refundable checkoff.

The contention that a refundable checkoff would make ABP more accountable was nothing more than a red herring tossed out by its opponents. It always boiled down to power and money.

To be fair, at times when feedlot operators are losing money on every head they sell, it helps when they can get back their $2-per-head checkoff. That’s only human nature.

However, the irony is that one of the reasons prices have been depressed is the direct result of COOL stifling and depressing Canadian cattle marketing — and the only way that battle can be fought is by the CCA with a healthy war chest. But that needs to be supported by checkoff funds, which many Alberta feedlot operators are demanding be refunded to them.

You can see that something is amiss here, and those not demanding refunds are getting fed up with having to pay the whole bill, particularly for those who seemingly benefit the most from CCA lobbying.

Whether you are for or against the refundable checkoff, everyone would agree it’s in the hands of the Alberta government. It created this impending crisis and only the province can fix it.

And there is a political opening to do just that — the ag minister and many of the senior bureaucrats who ended the non-refundable checkoff are now gone.

One would expect the present minister and new senior staff are aware of the negative consequences of Bill 43, not just here but potentially across the country. As the cattle herd declines and refunds increase, it’s only going to get worse. Repealing the act would be the right thing for the government to do for the industry.

The feedlot sector also needs to revisit this issue. They are sophisticated business people who should understand the strategic nature of such issues as market access, trade restrictions, and industry regulations. They know what needs to be done, and they should be in the forefront of supporting the CCA in its battle with those who threaten the economic viability of the industry here or abroad.

Instead, they are seen by many to be undermining the industry with their fixation on the refundable checkoff. They also need to do the right thing by being the industry leaders they are and support a return of the non-refundable checkoff.

Perhaps there is another timely opportunity to take some positive steps.

The Straw Man Beef Industry Strategy plan has just been released and has received a positive response from most of the industry. Within the strategy recommendations, reference is made to checkoffs and how vital they are to moving industry development forward. This would seem a critical opportunity for the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association, ABP, and government to show real initiative and support the strategy by moving forward on how the non-refundable checkoff can be fully reinstated, made to work better, and maybe even extended to processors.

What a great leap forward that would be for cattle industry unity. It can be done. All it takes is real leadership from all sectors.

The post Editorial: Day of reckoning looms as impact of refundable checkoffs hits home appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The idea was first broached around 20 years ago, but under different names. The venerable Western Stock Growers’ Association, who has championed the cause for many years, has called it Environmental Goods and Services. A past Alberta Environment report called it Ecosystem Goods and Services. Interestingly, an Internet search finds different descriptions and assumptions as to what EGS means — it seems to depend on the organization and its intentions.

The Miistakis Institute of the University of Calgary defines EGS “as the economic and social benefits humans derive, directly and indirectly, from the natural environment or Natural Capital, such as clean air, healthy soil, biodiversity, and water quality and quantity.” The institute has conducted research in the nature and value of EGS. Landowners, farmers and ranchers like such research because if a per-hectare value can be placed on EGS, then there is the potential of obtaining an additional revenue flow from one’s property.

Visions of being paid to watch grass grow come to mind.

However, any such research has not been an easy exercise because of the environmental variables from one location to another. To my knowledge, no research report has stuck its neck out and stated EGS is worth, for instance, $50 per hectare. Clearly, it would set a precedent. From a landowner perspective, it would be a perfect flag to wave in front of activist green groups, governments, wildlife organizations, fish and game associations, and the urban public. The message might run along the lines of, ‘Pay for the EGS we’re now providing for free or shut up.’

One can appreciate that none of the aforementioned groups really want to go down that trail. If you admit farmers and ranchers are providing ecological services for free, it’s not as easy to criticize the environmental impact of modern agriculture. But the current approach is not fair or progressive, particularly if one wants to enhance environmental flora and fauna.

A sliding scale of EGS values and payments would go a long way to seeing a remarkable change in the quality of ecosystems in many areas. For instance, if a base price was $10 per hectare and was increased gradually to much higher levels if certain standards and improvements were met, you’d see conservation measures quickly adopted. I expect even endangered species would be coming back from the dead if the right incentives were applied.

How could anyone be opposed to such a positive goal?

Perhaps there needs to be a summit held of all the stakeholders in EGS to begin taking the concept to the next level. Sure it’s blazing a new trail, but it could be a win-win situation for all and in particular, the long-suffering environment.

The post The time for EGS is long overdue appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

It caused a lot of consternation when the concept was first proposed, particularly as it was being imposed by the federal government by a certain deadline. If there is one common trait the cattle and beef industry has from top to bottom, it’s an acute sensitivity to new regulations. Howls of protest emanated from various sectors — most of them related to costs. The feds certainly stumbled on getting the industry to co-operate and tried to mitigate a bad situation by pouring millions of dollars to get the program going at different levels in the marketing chain. The problem for the industry was that there was not unified political consensus on how to handle the issue. One would hope the Straw Man Beef Industry Strategy would resolve that perennial problem. But I digress.

What needs to be accepted is that traceability is a fact of life for the cattle and beef business, and the feds are not going to retreat. If resistance continues, you can expect regulations will rain down from above.

Some in the marketing side of beef have stated that traceability is of no value in the export market outside of it being traced to “Canada.” That would be similar to what our export competitors do in foreign markets. If that’s all offshore buyers want to know about traceability, then so be it.

But I expect that will not be the situation with domestic and U.S. buyers. Maybe not immediately, but it’s sure to come as consumers/buyers want more meat “attributes.” One can almost certainly expect a complete traceability requirement for future beef exports to the EU with the pending CETA agreement. In fact, it’s all but guaranteed to be demanded if crafty EU negotiators see it as a possible trade restriction. Remember they beat us on the hormone issue. This is just another skirmish for the EU to win.

The time is over to complain about traceability and give false hope to producers at meetings that somehow the feds are going to relent in their drive to impose this program. I expect marketers will use whatever aspect of traceability that they will need for competitive purposes and that’s as it should be. It’s better to have the program make that information available, than to lose markets because the info was not available.

The post There’s no turning back, traceability is a fact of life appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Millions were spent by both sides in the campaign to convince voters of the benefits or not, of GM labelling.This battle has raged across the U.S. for years with the no side winning. The rationale for and against GM labelling has been well documented, but it has boiled down to ideology and ulterior motives with the consumer/voter probably more confused than enlightened.

I would suggest two trends have developed and perhaps the issue is becoming irrelevant to consumers/voters — time has a habit of creating that inevitability.

The inconvenient reality for the pro GM labelling side that a growing majority of manufactured food products either have some GM ingredient or are exposed to them at some point in the manufacturing or consumption process. That reality would mean that if GM labelling became mandatory it would have to be almost universally applied. I suspect most folks don’t read product labels and if GM contents were included those who did read them would become blind to the wording. Sort of like the universal wording “vitamin enriched.”

The other reality is that with so many GM products on the market, finding a product without them would be difficult and more costly — neither of which appeals to the vast majority of consumers. That would negate the underlying intent of the pro folks who presume consumers would rush out to find non-GM food products once they were shocked to do so by the mere sight of a GM food label. But like organic, fairtrade, free range and other such labels, this only motivates a minority with money to spend on lifestyle foods. In my large working-class area of Calgary, the food business is dominated by giant big-box chains and the lifestyle food sections are minuscule. Consumers in the neighbourhood buy on price and volume, and most wouldn’t know what GM was if they tripped over it. Nor would they care.

I give full credit to the science companies that have battled for the no label side. Such help was needed in the early days, otherwise we would have ended up with the GM paranoia situation that developed in Europe.

But maybe the time has come for the no side to change its tactics and embrace universal GM food labelling. I suspect it will have little impact on consumer buying practices. For the pro labelling side, such a step may actually not be all that helpful as it would dry up their campaign and fundraising business from this issue.

It could be a classic case of “be careful what you wish for.”

The post The battle over GM labels drags on, but most consumers couldn’t care less appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

That’s because the three straw men — Kim McConnell, John Kolk and David Andrews — have demonstrated steely determination to make sure this project to strategically revamp the beef sector does not die.

They recently managed to do what most could not — gather together virtually the entire cattle and beef industry establishment at not one but two meetings, one each in Toronto and Calgary. Those folks included leading representatives from the beef-processing and retail sectors. That’s quite a feat considering the historically fractious nature of the industry, which seems to come together only when there’s some calamity, such as BSE.

But then again, many would say the industry is already walking towards a possible beef-marketing calamity. That’s what the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute report on the future of Canadian beef marketing implied and it served as the catalyst to start the straw man process. To get the ball rolling, Gordon Cove, the CEO of ALMA, craftily provided some initial funding for the process. The three straw men were then convinced — or maybe it was cornered— to lead the usually headstrong cattle industry to better pasture. Considering what’s at stake, this effort may become a stroke of genius as long as the straw men don’t expire from aggravation.

First, a bit of historical perspective to temper any outbreaks of uncharacteristic overenthusiasm for what seems like just another “save the industry” exercise. Those long in the tooth know the sad history of beef industry studies, reports, strategic plans and pie in the sky — all of them valiant efforts, but quickly consigned to dusty shelves. That goes for industry summits, roundtable discussions and assorted other talk fests that petered out once whatever urgency caused them to erupt fizzled out. All of which caused some grizzled veterans at this straw man event to exclaim that it all seemed so “familiar” to previous industry revival events.

However, even cynics had to be impressed with what the straw men have managed to put together. It wasn’t just a hazy outline either — sure, the strategy had the usual recipe of goals, visions, values and missions — but proposals were put together by prominent stakeholders organized into focused committees. This draft of the strategy was just the first step, and a final version is scheduled to be ready before the end of the year.

The input and participation in the strategy’s development has been a lot more extensive than many had expected — every sector had some involvement, which bodes well for the next steps. I suspect the straw men know from experience that the first step in these types of exercises has every danger of becoming the last step. So they’ve come up with 10 targeted recommendations, each with a timeline, to move the process along. To see if they were on the right track they put some of them to an electronic vote by meeting participants, a clever way to get personal stakeholder involvement in the process.

It didn’t take long for some bumps in the road to arise: Concerns were expressed this initiative would develop into another industry organization that would inevitably step on the turf and egos of existing groups. The funding proposal stepped into the usual minefield of checkoffs, with primary producers having to cover all the costs — that caused the expected grumbling from those producers at the event. Not surprisingly, a proposal for a checkoff to be paid by processors and retailers went over rather well. Clearly funding will be a wrestling match.

A proposal to establish a central depository for genetics, marketing and carcass data was met with favour, but problems with the present BIXS program caused many to wonder if it was really possible. The creation of a new non-organization (Council of Beef Leaders) seemed to be viewed favourably, too, but unless it is deemed to be a council of equals from the start, the usual industry turf battles and political sniping is sure to break out.

From this old war horse’s perch, I sense there is considerable goodwill for this initial strategy, but pitfalls lay ahead. Having clear recommendations and timelines bodes well for real action. The next step will be for producers and the industry to get their respective organizations into the harness to pull the strategy forward. That’s easier said than done — there may be a place for governments to apply discipline or offer incentives to the stubborn in order to get some co-operation and progress.

Producers will want to see some concrete results from this exercise and real soon. Perhaps a pilot project on something from within the strategy or recommendations can be launched that producers can get their teeth into and that matters to them directly. Without some immediate success to point to, the battle to access more funding for a strategy through checkoff will never get off the ground.

In the meantime, funding has to be made available to keep this all rolling. The last thing this exercise needs is for it to be stalled for lack of cash. Past experience shows when momentum is lost, interest is lost and the whole effort soon fades away. Creating a collaborative cattle- and beef-marketing system would probably be a first in the world, so the industry is going down a new trail and will need strong guides for quite a while.

By accident or design (I suspect the latter), the straw men made a strategic decision to open up the consultation process by holding meetings open to anyone connected to the industry. I would suggest continuing such meetings as it’s going to put ongoing pressure on the leadership to consider the best interests of the overall industry and not get bogged down in the vested interests of their respective sectors.

If battle-scarred veterans can see some optimism in this industry strategy exercise — then there is hope. Perhaps history may not repeat itself after all. Good work, straw men.

The post Straw men give new hope for cattle and beef sector appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Alberta Farmer: Could you tell me a little bit about yourself, your background, and your farming operation?

Jan Slomp: I started farming in the Netherlands in 1979, where we milked 50 cows and farrowed 100 sows for a number of years. We had no prospect of expanding much so we started looking around at other countries like Canada, and in the late ’80s we arrived here and started a dairy. We are in the dairy business and milked as high as 90 cows, but since then have downsized. We use holistic practices in our operation and found we are just as successful with fewer cows as when we had 90 cows. We are self-contained, we purchase very little outside inputs. We are a mixed farm.

How long have you been involved with the NFU and what is the membership in Alberta?

I have been a member since 1989. I had an interest in the development of agriculture in Western Canada and being an NFU member gave me an education in its history and development for which I am very thankful. But I am concerned with the general direction of agriculture today. The NFU has thousands of members across Canada, but we don’t have a lot of members in Alberta. They are spread out across the province from Brooks to the Peace, but there is a concentration of members in the east-central area. We are not a checkoff organization. It’s completely voluntary.

Is consolidation in the ag industry with fewer farmers affecting your membership base?

Our membership peaked in the late ’90s, which is probably similar to other organizations. Where we have seen expansion is with youth members. We have farmers who have 3,000 or 4,000 acres. We do represent a lot of small-scale and direct-market farmers.

Does the NFU have any regular meetings with the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development minister or any senior officials? What’s your relationship with them?

No, we don’t meet with them much anymore. We used to, (but) they see us as irrelevant because they want to foremostly talk to the checkoff organizations. They seem to have more influence with the government. The Wildrose group probably has the same experience, and that’s a sad thing. We feel we are a free organization that represents people who have a broad range of thinking that helps in developing long-term policy.

A number of years ago the NFU produced a study on the economics of the cattle business and cattle marketing. It was well received at the time. Whatever happened to it?

It’s been updated in little pieces, it was prior to the BSE outbreak, but that report is still in effect in terms of our policy. It’s still relevant, particularly with the concentration of beef processing that affects the other sectors. We either have to regulate cattle marketing or enforce competition. The primary producer is still in a bind and that’s a fact.

The big issue over the last couple of years has been the change to the way the CWB operates. Is the NFU still pursuing that issue or are you moving on with other issues?

Our western-based members are still very much involved, but it is lost and things have moved on. But the fallout is affecting us now in moving the big crop with a backlog in grain movement. Many producers can’t deliver on their contracts in 2014. We have a monopolistic railroad system because we are missing the authority to tell the railroads to move grain as the CWB did. They move what is most attractive to them and I see certain sectors in the chain becoming very powerful. We may have to enforce options better or regulate movement. Some could say we saw it coming. Our members are still in court with the CWB issue.

Where does the NFU stand on the COOL issue, which is having an impact on the cattle and beef industry in this province?

What we failed to do in the past was to sell a premium beef product different from the U.S. Instead, we have lowered our standards to those of the U.S. with the idea we would have one market. But that has never worked with the spread getting bigger and it’s not all due to trucking. We need to cater to markets that want reduced hormones that are available in other parts of the world.

Is the NFU still opposed to GM seed varieties? If so, is that not a problem considering the widespread use in canola, corn, and soybeans?

Our policy is not opposed to GM, but we believe in the cautionary principle. We have to have proper independent testing and not testing from companies that want to sell the product. That’s the core of our policy. We are opposed to GM alfalfa for that reason. It’s presented as innovation, but it’s based on a 20-year-old technique. I believe if we resort to one chemical, we will increase our problem. Roundup Ready products are not working as well, which is why we have reservations. We know some of our members are growing GM canola, so we have diverse opinion on the topic.

I understand the NFU is a member of an international peasant farmers’ union organization. Is that still the case, and how does that connect to producers in Canada, most of whom are commercial farmers?

Yes, we are members and I know the term peasant has a negative connotation over here. But I have travelled abroad and you would be surprised about how much we have in common with farmers in other countries when it comes to issues like marketing.

The post New NFU president says agriculture heading in wrong direction appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.