The Rural Voice, 1991-11, Page 21especially true if trade within the
confines of the European Community
is discounted. Once intra-E.C. trade is
subtracted, there has been almost no
growth in global beef trade since the
late 1970s, and global pork exports
have been fairly stagnant during the
1980s. Poultry trade peaked in 1981
and remained below that peak until
1987. It is very unlikely that major
increases in offshore meat exports will
occur in the immediate future and a
shrinkage in world meat trade levels
canr•ot be ruled out.
With continued increases of both
grain supplies and feeding efficien-
cies, global livestock and poultry out-
put will rise constantly in the years
ahead. These regular output increases
will mean that an even greater propor-
tion of global meat output will remain
in the nation where it is produced.
The most important changes for the
North American livestock and poultry
industries will likely occur within
North America.
The predictions of a food short
world by Thomas Robert Malthus
have been wrong for 200 years.
Current trends indicate that this will
continue to be the case in the years
ahead. With world grain prices in real
terms at record historical lows, it is
evident that we are not living in a food
short world.°
(Douglas Murch is the director of
economic research and secretary to
the Livestock Feed Board of Canada,
which is a Crown Corporation. This
article appeared in the September 30
edition of Grain Facts.)
RURAL VOICE OPINION:
IS IT TIME FOR CANADIAN FARMERS
TO GET THEIR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER?
By Jim Fitzgerald, editor
The latest farm crisis for Canadian producers of grains and
oil seeds, which has festered for the past decade, is something
akin to the old business expression, being "nickeled and dimed
to death." The prices inch down in small increments — nickels
and dimes — until we have reached the point where farm
incomes in those sectors are falling far below the poverty line,
leaving little for living expenses, let alone a return on labour and
investment.
The federal and provincial governments have come through
with last minute emergency assistance packages of about $835
million. Farm groups, trying not to appear like they're looking
a gift horse in the mouth, are grudgingly saying thanks, and
quietly pointing out that it's not enough. And they're right.
The new money will only stop the haemorrhaging
temporarily (if at all), but won't keep many in business. Even
the new jointly funded government -producer programs, set to
kick in next year, are far from adequate. The new GRIP program
will only cover farmers' prices to the 1985 level, while expenses
have risen to 1992 levels. How many other professional groups
would put up with living on 1985 incomes?
So, what is the answer? Canadians farmers, especially those
from the Prairie provinces, have been told for generations that
Canada is the bread basket of the world, with three out of every
four bushels of wheat sold on the export market. In the last
decade, this has been reinforced by reports that the world popu-
lation, now over five billion persons, is exploding by some 90
million new mouths a year, with many of them dying of star-
vation. But do those people want our wheat, corn, and soy
beans? With incomes far below ours, can they even afford to
pay enough to keep our farmers in business?
In the above article, Douglas Mutch convincingly addresses
the first presumption we hold dear: is there a world food
shortage? He contends that the global food demand has not
increased as much as was projected in the mid 1970s, while food
supplies have exceeded expectations. The main reasons are
ones we're all familiar with in Canada: increased yields, better
technology, mechanization, increased feeding efficiencies. He
points out that while global grain acreage in 1990 is the same
as 1967, output has increased 70 percent, while meat output
is up 120 per cent. Continued advances in biotechnology and
technological transfers will mean grain yields will continue
to increase in the foreseeable future, Murch contends, and that
will result in a continued excess grain production capacity for
years to come.
As well, most importing countries are striving for national
self sufficiency. Mutch says that with a few exceptions, only
those countries with a significant trade surplus of non-
agricultural products can afford to be a net importer of food.
To which I might add, look out for all those former
communist countries, whose farmers, once they get their act
together, will be able to flood the market with cheap grain.
All these questions are in need of answers, and hopefully,
if there is a positive thing to come out of the farm crisis, it's
that we may get them answered once and for all. That will
lead to some solutions to truly address the problem. It's
obvious that the Canadian governments, carrying huge
deficits from subsidizing other sectors of the economy, don't
have pockets deep enough to subsidize grain growing for the
export market at a level high enough to keep farmers in
business. Although the public is sympathetic, farmers are so
few in number that the latest interest the media has with the
their plight is a. fad that will soon end, and they'll move on to
other stories. So it's up to all farmers to sit down and put their
own house in order.
The same chaos faced the dairy and poultry sectors 25
years ago. Plagued by low prices, high debt loads, bank-
ruptcies, and despair, farmers with the help of visionaries like
Bill Stewart and Eugene Whelan, decided to end the lunacy
and match domestic supply with domestic demand. Maybe
it's time that grain, pork, and beef farmers did the same, and
quit deluding themselves that they can be "world com-
petitive" and still make a decent living at the same time.
The legislation is already in place; it wouldn't cost the
government vast amounts of cash; and in the long run, it
would end the despair on concessions across Canada.°
NOVEMBER 1991 17