Thursday, March 13, 2014

Just a little taste ......


To drive home the point about activating  social media I did a little Google search for "Dairy Farmers of Canada" (DFC) and came up with all of the items below on the first search page. 

 DFC was at the top ( a sponsored link) but their items were all associated with recipes and dairy goodness and links to the organization's web page.  Much too difficult for those in a hurry to find information.

Another sponsored link at the top of the page, in addition to the main link that took readers to Mr. Doyle's rebuttal article, would have given the curious (media, consumers, government) access to a balanced view.  One has to remember that it is also page views that help drive up the placement of these nasty articles.  So Mr. Doyle's Huffington rebuttal doesn't even show up. 

This strategy should be employed each and every time any of the industry's detractors put out a major report that requires rebuttal in Huffington.-CG


Conference Board slams dairy rules

Where are the farmers?



So I received information on Twitter a few days ago about this article and my first thought was "Good the industry is on top of this issue."  Then I discovered that Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC)  was only intending to use social media.

This does not inspire me with confidence.  Especially when I  checked the article below and discovered only 67 tweets and 10 Facebook 'likes'!!  

Surely a concerted effort to involve all milk producers in a campaign to take the time to move this item along with twitter and/or Facebook would have far better results.  Anyone with a decent email list  should be able to do better than this in one county let lone the entire country.

Have all Boards done anything to encourage action from their producers? They need to be part of this and energetically share, share, share.

The goal, of course is to get this rebuttal in front of the consumer and the public.  Social media cannot do this in a vacuum. - CG


Richard Doyle

Richard Doyle

GET UPDATES FROM RICHARD DOYLE

The recent report from the Conference Board of Canada indicates a disturbing trend of think tanks offering what amounts to bad business advice.
It is not a surprise that the Conference Board calls for the dismantling of Canada's supply management system, and the fallacies and misleading assertions used to support that call are common in some circles.
One assertion, that supply management costs the average Canadian family an extra $276 per year at the grocery store for their dairy products, is based on the assumption that removing supply management would reduce the farm gate price in Canada to the so-called "world" farm gate price.
But this argument ignores the reality that farm and retail prices are not so directly linked, or that this "world price" is not what farmers elsewhere get paid all the time!
There is a better bet to compare retail prices around the world. The market research firm Nielsen has one of the most extensive resources for compiling data from millions of price points. In 2013, milk in Australia and New Zealand cost roughly the same as what we pay in Canada -- a weighted average of $1.47 to $1.50 per litre (yes there are $1/litre offerings, just like one can find that price when buying in 4-litre formats in some of the major markets in Canada).
2014-03-10-price_int.jpg

The fact is the farm is just the first link in the supply chain. There are other links between the farm gate and your refrigerator that are determining and protecting their own margins and, where they don't have supply management, they have to deal with increased pricing volatility.
It has been proven time and again around the world that deregulation in the dairy sector does not lead to lower prices for consumers. Take the Australian example, a favourite of critics of supply management.
The Australian fresh milk market was deregulated in 2000, and almost immediately farm prices began to fluctuate wildly. But retail prices increased steadily, accentuated by a tax levied to help farmers with the transition. It was bad for farmers, and did not benefit consumers.
2014-03-10-myth_australianpricederegulation.jpg

In the United States, milk averages $1.04 per litre at retail. The United States experience allows us to examine the angle of the bad business advice: the average farm size is 183 cows, close to the average size the Conference Board recommends for Canada, hanging their hats on the "sales" realized by the farm, but carefully not looking at what could be the net revenue, which is important to small businesses. This 183-cow farm in the U.S lost money in 2012 -- an estimated eight cents for every litre produced, according to USDA.
It is only through a combination of government subsidies, working a second job to supplement farm income, and hopes of a better year (this year promises to be), that these farmers were able to keep going, as long as they were not too highly leveraged. To keep debts low, a small business needs to be careful in what technology they invest! It seems too easy to forget that farms, like other small businesses, need to make money to keep producing food.
European farmers know too well the harsh realities of milk prices that fall below the cost of production. Twice in recent years European farmers have taken to the streets in protest of a system that forces artificially low prices on dairy products and makes it all but impossible to eke out a living on a European livestock farm.
Recently, dairy farmers in the U.K. have protested a move by a supermarket to cut price with concern over the impact of "devaluing milk in the eyes of the consumer." Similarly,Canadian food manufacturers are pushing back on pressure from retailers over what they see as a move to cheapen their brand, and want a "code of conduct". When a business invests to build the value of their brand or product, downward pressure from distributors is not welcome. Then there are distributors taking a 30 to 50 per cent margin on a product, and letting producers be blamed for the price.
Canadians are third in the world in having the most affordable food, after U.S. and U.K. And it's safe and high quality too. While farmers don't think milk should be cheaper than water, the retail price is not set by supply management. Supply management regulates what is paid to the farmer at the farm gate for raw milk, so farmers can cover the cost of production and make a living from the farm, which operates 365 days a year.
I will conclude with an observation that, within supply management, the dairy industry has surpassed the Conference Board's most ambitious scenario in terms of new jobs creation: EcoRessources has found that jobs have increased 2.8 per cent in just two years: from 115,104 in 2009 to 118,330 in 2011.
 
Follow Richard Doyle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@dfc_plc

Thursday, October 17, 2013

CETA Bad News for Dairy in Canada


From Dairy Farmers of Ontario: a listing of the preliminary impact.  I wonder what the Bankers are thinking?  Could this have an equity impact?  For now here are the issues.


DFO Responds to Proposed CETA Deal

October 17, 2013
CETA Deal Doubles European Access to Canadian Market & Hurts Canadian Dairy

On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, the Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC) executive was notified 
that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) negotiations between Canada 
and the European Union (EU) have concluded.

We have been informed that the EU will get an additional 17,700 tonnes of tariff free 
access for its cheese into the Canadian market (TRQ).

There are different ways to quantify the impact this will have on Canadian farmers and 
the Canadian dairy industry. However, it is very significant and represents at least 4.5 %
 of the Canadian milk produced for the cheese market and is approximately 2.25% of all 
milk produced in Canada.

In addition, the impact of giving increased TRQ to the EU represents a significant risk that
 even more market access will be given for the on-going Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations. 
 There is little doubt that the US, Australia and New Zealand will see this as an opening 
and pursue their interests aggressively; certainly for cheese and likely other dairy products, 
as well.

While the Federal Conservatives have stated they continue to support the 
Canadian dairy system, known as Supply Management, this deal does not support dairy farmers.

Giving Up Canadian Dairy

The Canadian dairy system provides safe, high quality Canadian milk products and 
supports a strong local economy. This deal compromises our system.

The CETA deal will cost our Canadian local dairy economy millions of dollars. This potential 
deal is a loss for Canadian dairy farmers and industry. It will take income from Canadian 
dairy farmers and their communities and give it to the European industry.  With this loss of 
farm income and squeeze on cheese makers, it is also taking economic development and 
jobs from Canadian communities.

Our farmers are demanding that the government matches its actions with its words by 
standing up for Canada and the Canadian dairy industry by not giving up our safe high
 quality Canadian dairy.

What the Deal Means in Numbers

What the Proposed Deal Could Mean for Canadian Dairy
  • The EU access will total 31,971 tonnes or 7.5% of the Canadian cheese market.
  • Total imports will reach 38,171 tonnes or about 9% of the current Canadian consumption.
  • The EU will have 63% of the fine cheese market in Canada. 
  • The additional access is equivalent to a 2.25% cut in farm quota.
  • That quota cut carries an estimated farm income loss of nearly $150 M
  • Farmers will then have to rationalize their dairy herd

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Fair Food Trade ? Not likely.

The Conference Board of Canada is at it again.  Another report and with more spurious claims.  Perhaps they think that if they acknowledge some truths their doggerel will be better accepted.

Dairy Farmers of Canada deserves some kudos from their farmers.  I hope the industry is sharing this material far and wide to their producers. Producers are increasingly finding their information and updates via Twitter and sharing it!! They in turn, can transform and impact what kind of information the media is getting by posting from Twitter.

I am amazed at how widespread items can be.  It just takes a tweet to the right place or forum. Go for guys!-CG



Richard Doyle

GET UPDATES FROM RICHARD DOYLE

One Size Does Not Fit All in Food Trade

Posted: 08/01/2013 5:22 pm

3
4
Another Conference Board of Canada report claims supply management drives up prices and discourages international trade. I found it interesting to see some trade truths being acknowledged, that one-size does not fit all. Here are some more facts:
Farmers are not against trade. Canadians want Canadian food, and coffee of course!
There is no evidence that deregulating Canada's dairy market would result in lower prices for consumers. In fact, international experience tells us otherwise.
The Australian milk industry deregulated in 2000. The experiment did not work out as people had hoped: Dairy Australia monitored farm price fluctuations increased, hurting farmers, and consumer prices just kept going up at the same pace as before, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, resulting in this situation: 
2013-07-31-australianpricederegulation.jpg

Neither consumers nor farmers are benefiting. In the post-deregulated Australian dairy market, price fluctuations faced by farmers are more severe, and consumers are continuing to face rising prices.
It does not seem to work in Columbia either, which I do not find surprising. I've blogged about this before.

Furthermore, supply management has not prevented Canada from negotiating significant international trade agreements. Since 1986, with supply management firmly in place, Canada has completed free trade deals with the U.S. and Mexico (NAFTA), Jordan, Columbia, Peru, Costa Rica, Chile, Israel and EFTA (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
It must be noted that in these negotiations, Canada was not alone in wanting to "protect" certain sectors. Beef, sugar, dairy and rice are often considered "sensitive" by several countries in trade talks, as are cars, procurement and other services. See the complete article at: One size does not fit all in Food Trade

Bruce Muirhead does it well, Again!!!

I would think that the Media would review articles like this and try to provide the public with some balance. True, it is summer and true, although farmers get upset about inaccurate press, the media does not always pay attention one way or the other.  The problem is that when they do pay attention material like that from Professor Muirhead is not at the forefront. Let's hope that by posting regular articles to the Huffington Post, they at least can find 'the other side of the story'!! -CG


Bruce Muirhead

GET UPDATES FROM BRUCE MUIRHEAD

What the Media Has Wrong About Dairy Farmers

Posted: 08/01/2013 5:21 pm

2
7
With reoccurring and recycled negative commentary about dairy supply management in the Canadian media, one would think that it, and not money, is the root of all evil. I believe that this country's media and punditry is either ill-informed on the merits of the system, or committed to a world view in which data and practical reality have no place.
The question often raised in Canada, and around the world, is this: does dairy supply management, represent a reasonable model through which to license Canadian milk production?
Neoliberal critics like Canada's Conference Board or the CD Howe Institute, and international critics like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, say no, claiming the system gouges consumers, at least when compared with prices set by "the market," which in their world is rational, objective and infallible. And we have seen where that has gotten us, what with market meltdowns, imposed austerity, and sharply rising unemployment in many countries.

But more to the point, the claim is simply not true. The cost comparison between supply management and the market-determined price is like comparing apples and oranges. When the market sets the price, the direct expense to consumers does not generally reflect the outlays incurred by the farmer. As a result, government must provide billions of dollars worth of subsidies annually to farmers if they are to stay in business.
The critics of supply management do not factor these hidden taxpayer dollars into the cost of a litre of milk. In Canada that is not the case. There is no hidden subsidy provided by Canadian taxpayers to dairy farmers.
By comparison, U.S. subsidies to dairy producers represent about 40% of American dairy farmer incomes, when it reaches them. These subsidies come directly from taxpayers' pockets. Without that hidden support American dairy products would be much more costly for consumers, and much more expensive than the equivalent Canadian product.  See more at: What the Media Has Wrong about Dairy Farmers

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

The Conference Board of Canada goes after Farmers Again!

It consistently boggles my mind that after so much discussion about the gutting of rural Canada and the continual loss of jobs to imported products, that the Conference Board of Canada can even print this stuff.

 They certainly have not factored in what those imports would do to farmers or food safety. Increased access means lost jobs in whichever sectors.

 The brave new world of new, better jobs is is disappearing in a puff of smoke. 

You can find a complete summary of their views in the Press Release at: Canada's Barriers on Food Trade only Hurt  Ourselves. No one ever asks the industries on the losing end of this equation what the impact would be or what their opinions are.-CG



NEWS RELEASE 14-19

Canada’s Barriers on Food Trade Only Hurt Ourselves

Reducing tariffs likely to lead to more exports abroad and greater choice at home
Ottawa, July 31, 2013 –Canada should be a leader in reducing trade barriers on food products – instead of being one of the strongest holdouts in the developed world. A new Conference Board of Canada report, Liberalization’s Last Frontier: Canada’s Food Trade, argues that the food industry and Canadian consumers would benefit if import duties on food were significantly lowered.
shopping for milk
“The benefits of freer trade in food are similar to those from trading any other product,” said Michael Burt, Director, Industrial Economic Trends. “The Canadian food industry can become more prosperous by serving fast-growing markets, which benefits all Canadians. And consumers benefit from a greater variety of food products at lower cost – including staples like year-round fruits and vegetables, coffee, sugar and tea. The only thing preventing Canada from gaining these benefits is ourselves.”

Highlights

  • Trade barriers for food have fallen over the past 20 years, but Canada still maintains high tariffs, especially compared to similar countries.
  • Canada is unlikely to gain the full benefits of its current trade negotiations without agreeing to reductions in tariffs on food products.
  • Food imports provide Canadians with products they could not otherwise obtain at affordable prices.
Among the 34 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada is one of the very few that export considerably more food than they import, along with Australia, New Zealand and Chile. Unlike these countries, however, Canada still maintains very high tariff barriers on all dairy products, chicken, and eggs. And Canada has high barriers on wheat and barley.