Loading...
The Rural Voice, 1982-02, Page 4Workable system needed I read with interest Mr. Roulston's column (R.V. Nov. 1981) dealing with supply management in marketing boards and the problems presented by high monetary value attached to quota. His point was well taken. It is becoming more obvious by the month that over -production of red meats on the North American market is causing disaster to pork and beef producers in Canada. The shake -out is well advanced so far as beef producers are concerned. It is tragic that manyare being forced out of beef production -not because they are inefficient, but rather because their equity has gone -they are not rich enough to hang on. The problem is a marketing one and must be solved in that context. The recent budget brought down in Ottawa points up the fact that our problems will not -in fact can not, be solved by government subsidies. Ironically, the understandable furor about high interest rates and government assistance -or lack of it, has had one most unfortunate effect in that it has diverted some farmers attention from the basis problem of the red meat industry -the problem of an archaic mark- eting system. Dairy farmers and poultry farmers also experience high interest rates and escalat- ing costs. The difference is that they have a system of marketing their produce that enables them to get a fair return for their produce and thus cope with high input costs. Mr. Roulston is concerned about high quota value. It must be kept in mind that when the marketing board principles were being hammered out, the problems we now have with high quota value were not forseen. The purpose of supply manage- ment through quota was to make produc- tion profitable. It was never intended that quota should provide a bonanza for farmers upon retirement. It was assumed that sale of quota from one person to another was the logical method of transfer. The alternative to the sale of quota is allocation. The allocating body must be objective and above suspicion or under the table deals would become as troublesome as present quota values have become. At present , most marketing boards exercise some control over the sale of quota, so in effect there is a balance between selling and allocating quota. The worst features of high quota value are that they make LETTERS acquisition of quota difficult for smaller, less wealthy producers and that it adds to production costs. Since quota and its costs are central to the whole principle of orderly marketing I believe we should be looking at them afresh. We should decide who we believe should be producing food in the future and fit quota allocation and cost into that pattern. For my part, I believe we should plan our future around the family farm -that is a farm unit where most of the labour is provided by the family and where the financial decisions are made by the family. I believe there are sound financial and social reasons to go in that direction. Our handling of quota should be supportive of that goal. The most disturbing element in the present farm situation is the apparent lack of understanding on the part of so many farm leaders' politicians and media people of the real issues. Most of what we hear from them is repeated demands that government do something. The main problem of pork and beef producers is that a technological revolu- tion has taken place in the production of pork and beef in the past number of years which guarantees over production given our present methods of marketing. Bringing about a rational, workable marketing system will not be easy but it will be possible and profitable, as others have found out. Failure to act will insure more of the same which we have had in the past few years. That, farmers, is our choice. Cameron MacAuley Ripley One man's opinion I can't help respecting the comments made by Andre J. Durand of Zurich in his letter to the Rural Voice January 82 issue. The remarks, 1 understand by Mr. Vos are but one man's opinion. Regardless, I have for sometime wondered the attraction shown him by this publication and for that matter, others in the farm sector. With most of your writers, I find I can relate as do most farm people I am sure. Mr. Vos's opinion I question. One can't but wonder how much research he does and how many hours are spent with other farmers as to guidance in marketing rather than handouts which only prolong the inevitable. David Bowers R.R. 3, Durham PG. 2 THE RURAL VOICE/FEBRUARY 1982 Editor's Note: Mr. Vos asks where and when he wrote an article against supply management as Mr. Durand alleges. He also says he has never advised anyone how many people anywhere are for or against quotas for pork. A forum to trade ideas My compliments. I believe you are publishing a fine farm magazine. Farmers need more than bare facts. They need insight, analysis and thought provoking articles. Rural Voice provides this. It is hoped that you will continue providing articles written by farmers and farm wives, who are more than straight reporters. If there is room for expansion, it should be directed to practical information that farmers can put to work. If Rural Voice writers can provide a forum to trade ideas...to bring one farmer's business methods to another...then readership will keep increasing and agribusiness support will follow suit. Rural Voice is an unique magazine and in my opinion could gain even more stature by providing the odd article on modern farm business management. Sincerely, John DePutter London We'd be happy to print your comments. Address your letter to : The Rural Voice Box 10, Bly 1h, Ont.