The Rural Voice, 1989-04, Page 12– Hog – Beef
– Veal – Poultry
– Dairy – Pet
10 THE RURAL VOICE
THE BEEFS
ABOUT BEEF
When the first drive for supply
management in beef took place about
six years ago, most proponents of
supply management were in deep
fmancial trouble. It was obvious to
the objective observer that even
supply management, if possible,
would not have saved most of them.
Today's supporters of supply
management are a different breed.
They are not necessarily on the brink
of bankruptcy. More likely they
simply want more security.
Opponents, largely strong
supporters of the Ontario Cattlemen's
Association, want to retain the status
quo. Their philosophy is that there are
opportunities for those who want to
grasp them — opportunities lost when
supply management is implemented.
They also look at the adverse
effects of supply management systems
for fowl and dairy and want their
children to have equal opportunity to
start in the beef business, as they had
themselves.
Let's take a look at the three op-
tions given in the upcoming plebiscite
of beef marketing.
The fust option is to leave every-
thing as is. Supporters of this position
say that packers recognize the quality
particular to specific farms. A packer
will make a higher bid for some cattle
just because of a farmer's good name.
Opponents claim that a lack of buyers
at sales barns often depresses prices.
The second option is to organize a
central selling system, roughly similar
to that of the Ontario Pork Producers
Marketing Board.
Under this system, packers
would not know where the animals
came from and would bid on average
quality. The farmer with an estab-
lished name would lose some of his
advantage.
But comparison to the hog board is
really not possible. All hog carcasses
are rather similar in quality. This
quality, at present, is exclusively
determined by the percentage of lean,
and producers are paid accordingly.
Ontario hogs, set beside U.S. hogs
as well as hogs from other provinces,
have consistently brought higher
prices. It is not always easy to see this
because Ontario hog prices are pooled
and the price is at the assembly yards.
U.S. hogs prices are quoted at
Omaha, delivered, and at live weights.
It is impossible to make a precise
comparison because of the U.S.
farmer's loss in transportation and
because prices at small markets are
generally lower than at Omaha and are
not included in price reports. The
same probably applies to cattle prices.
A central selling system for cattle
(Holstein, Hereford, Angus, Simmen-
tal etc. etc.) would have its own spe-
cial difficulties. If these could be
overcome, and that is a big if, compar-
isons with hog sales could be made.
Should cattlemen vote for a central
selling system, they would have to
offer their opinion on a third option,
full supply management, at the first
opportunity (eg. when the majority of
provinces agreed to go the same road).
This last option appeals to those
who value security for their business
over freedom to act. It would benefit
farmers who are not among the top
producers and also those who have
problems with individual marketing.
These farmers could, however, equal-
ize their opportunities by accepting
help from organizations like the UCO.
Cattlemen would do well to attend
the scheduled public meetings with an
open mind and make their decision
only after weighing all pros and cons.
Blind loyalty, whether to the OCA or
to the proponents of change, is not in
their best interest.0
Adrian Vos, from Huron County, has
contributed to The Rural Voice since
its inception in 1975.