The Rural Voice, 1989-11, Page 37of the Beef Producers for Change
(BPFC) in their fight to establish a
marketing board in the beef industry.
He liked their goal of getting more
marketing control because he knows
what boards have gained for poultry.
But certainly he is not bitter about
the defeat of that initiative in the
referendum held last April, and his
even manner suggests that few events
could provoke him. But neither is he
adding corral space.
"We could get rid of the cattle but
it hasn't been that bad," he says. The
farm sells 15 to 20 bulls for breeding
purposes each year and began home -
testing cattle last summer after being
on government test for many years.
The defeat of the BPFC was the
result of a strong campaign run by the
Ontario Cattlemen's Association, bad
timing, and a lack of knowledge
among farmers concerning what the
BPFC were trying to accomplish, says
Graham. And he says he fears that the
lack of knowledge about Canadian
agriculture among government offi-
cials could have a far greater effect.
"Canada has no long-term
agricultural policy," he says. Graham
questions the country's desire to be
self-sufficient in food production as
politicians, he says, seem concerned
only with keeping the voting public
well fed on a supply of cheap food,
no matter where it is grown.
He refers to this emphasis as a
"conspiracy" by government officials
afraid of what would happen if the
price of food rose dramatically.
With the Free Trade Agreement in
place, Graham sees agriculture here
being dominated by the U.S., where
government policy is established by
the interests of agri-business. "That
has not happened in Canada yet and
therein lies the difference," he says
when comparing the two systems.
Graham believes that marketing
boards, despite the financial limita-
tions they place on entry into farming,
are the only institutions stopping the
agricultural invasion from the U.S.
"Quota limits people getting into the
business, but so does poverty," he
says.
Producers under the quota system
certainly have the most to lose. At the
current price for laying quota of $29
per bird, the destruction of the system
would wipe nearly $900,000 off
Graham's asset sheet. The creation of
single -owner laying units south of the
border that could supply all of Canada
with eggs worries him.
Government people in Ottawa
still think egg producers here are in-
efficient, Graham says. He cites the
increase in annual production for a
single bird from 240 to 300 eggs as
proof that such is not the case. "How
efficient do they want us to get?"
However, the very improvements
that have increased egg production —
controlled lighting and automated
watering, feeding, and egg gathering
systems — have also made production
adaptable to industrialized farming,
Graham says. He adds that he is not
bothered by how large operations get,
as long as the family farm concept is
retained.
Graham has been involved in
bringing about many of the changes in
the egg industry through his 14 years
as a director on the Ontario Egg
Producers Marketing Board and his 2
years as president of the Canadian Egg
Producers Council. He has also been
a member of the provincially appoint-
ed Red Meat Committee and belongs
to the Federation of Agriculture.
Promotion of eggs has been a pet
project of his. So many new products,
such as separated egg yokes or separ-
ated egg whites, are being developed
by the industry that it is hard for the
board to keep track of what is
available, he says.
"Today it is so hard to identify a
farmer," Graham says, reviewing the
areas of agriculture he is involved in.
"It is such a demanding business that
often the people who should be at
farm meetings are too busy to attend.
Scott or Jeff should be the ones going
but they are tied up here."
Graham's plans are to continue
attending meetings and representing
the industry in whatever capacity
possible. From past performance,
most people would likely agree that
he is not a bad third choice from the
Graham family.0
NOVEMBER 1989 35