Questions and differences
The provinces are all over the map when it comes to assistance for pork producers, and the new whole farm disaster program poses more questions than it answers.With Ontario pork producers scheduled to receive whole farm disaster program applications in the mail in the next few days, where do they rank now against competitors when it comes to government assistance? A precise answer is elusive because government and industry officials have yet to finalize details of still-unfolding financial aid.
Furthermore, no one is anxious to publish details of programs. "If you report that, some American guy is going to write it all up and then they're going to say, 'From now on, guys from Saskatchewan, you have to pay so many dollars for hogs going to the States'," explains Don Hrapchak, general manager of Saskatchewan Pork International.
Hrapchak's response is typical, as fear of painful U.S. countervailing duties levied against Canadian hogs in the past makes many Canadian officials wary when called to explain publicly producer assistance. The U.S. isn't shy about its own assistance programs. The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), the body that represents American producers, has since pork markets collapsed last fall loudly and proudly touted an array of creative demands on government.
NPPC has called for loan guarantees and a federal debt restructuring program. Other requests include a humanitarian gilt lift and a direct cash infusion.
On Jan. 12, U.S. vice-president Al Gore announced details of a US$50-million scheme that will give most American producers US$5 per hog for up to 500 hogs. U.S. federal officials have also pledged US$50 million for a bonus pork purchase for federal food assistance and have bought 50,000 tonnes of pork for Russia.
Are U.S. officials worried about current Canadian assistance programs? "We do watch for those programs, but those are all very legal," assures Donna Reifenschneider, NPPC president.
Carl Moore, vice-chairman of the Canadian Pork Council and Canada's point man on the farm disaster program as well as Canada-U.S. trade, insists "Canada has nothing" except the existing Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA) program and the federal-provincial disaster program announced last fall. Moore concedes some provincial governments have loan programs, but he maintains these are generally the same as banks offer and designed as bridge financing until the federal-provincial disaster relief program kicks in.
It's still not known how Ontario producers will fare under the disaster program. Dave Hope, director of OMAFRA's policy and analysis branch, says a review of records from 15 farms for the past 10 years shows all would have received a payout during at least one year.
A further projection was done "on farms mainly getting their revenue from hogs" during the three-year period 1995-1998. "Most tended to pay out," Hope reveals, but he cautions "for purposes of trade," he wants to avoid publishing specific examples or give the appearance this is a program tailored to hog farmers: "It's a whole farm program not specifically designed for pork producers." - Robert Irwin
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
back
Farm relief in the mail
Application forms (not cheques) are finally in the mail for the much-maligned federal-provincial whole farm relief program announced last fall.Even before complete details were released, many producers had decided the plan provides too little too late. "We all know there's not enough funds in the program; no one is satisfied," concludes Guy Desforges, Fournier, president Prescott-Glengarry pork producers association.
Will Nap, chairman of Ontario Pork, attributes producer unhappiness to a lack of information. Still, he says government officials "have been as open as they can be without it being passed by management board." That formality only took place Dec. 12, he notes. Nap concedes some farmers will get nothing from the program.
It favours those who purchase feed, offering little to most land-based producers across the province who generally had good crops and correspondingly high inventories.
Many family farmers who use Dec. 31, 1998 as a year end will be disadvantaged because prices were severely depressed only in November and December 1998. Corporate farms that selected other year ends may be able to include more losses.
Nap says those who have recently expanded or improved their facilities are also disadvantaged because interest isn't an allowable expense in calculating the gross margins on which the plan is based. He acknowledges another sore point with producers is the government's initial refusal to cover so-called negative margins.
The pork board has been repeatedly rebuffed in efforts to get the provincial government to launch a loan program. Last month government officials again rejected a proposed plan that would allow producers to draw from a fund when prices fell below $1.20 kg. and repay when prices rose to $1.55 kg.
Now, after months in the making, Ontario Pork has revealed plans for an industry alliance that will incorporate many of these ideas. Furthermore, packers, bankers, truckers, feed suppliers and veterinarians appear to have bought in to a plan to fund the elusive loan program.
Loan guarantees sought from Agriculture Minister Noble Villeneuve are the main stumbling block, but if that fails "the players in the alliance have to step up to the plate," explains Ontario Pork chief executive officer Paul Knechtel. The group plans to create a loan pool to help producers who need assistance most.
At first, the idea of a packer or a bank contributing to help a producer who is dealing with a competitor may seem strange. But Knechtel says everyone in the alliance "has to recognize that it's in their best interest to put something like this together so that our producers as a body don't fail." - Robert Irwin
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
back
Monsanto appeals BST ruling
Canadian dairy farmers haven't heard the last word about recombinant bovine somatotropin (BST) by a long shot.BST maker Monsanto announced that it would appeal the federal decision to deny approval for its BST product Nutrilac almost as soon as Health Canada's mid-January announcement.
Health Canada based its rejection on a committee of experts' report on animal health. The committee, named last year by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, cited an increased cull rate in cows treated with BST because of mastitis, lameness and nutritional distress.
Monsanto's Canadian vice-president Ray Mowling was taken aback by the decision, which was made almost immediately after the 400-page animal health report was presented to Health Canada. He said Monsanto had no chance to respond to the report before Health Canada rejected Monsanto's application for approval, which was initiated nine years ago. "It is unheard of in terms of a process," Mowling said. "It didn't give us a chance to respond to the panel.
"Some of it, in analysis, is just plain wrong, in our view." Mowling said some of the studies cited in the report represented research on competitors' products.
Mowling said the Canadian dairy industry should be upset by this decision. In effect, Health Canada has said that farmers here can't handle the product, even though it is approved for use in the U.S. and Mexico, as well as other countries.
Mowling said he wasn't surprised that the Royal Society of Physicians and Surgeons approved Nutrilac as far as human health was concerned. "At least that is a positive development."
But groups that are leery of human health safety remain unconvinced. "I think that Health Canada is very happy to have a veterinary committee to take the heat off them on the milk issue," says Victor Daniels, Kirkton, chairman of the Toronto Food Policy Council. The council and other members of a coalition concerned about human health will go ahead with a report likely to be finished March 1.
"Officially we are grateful to Health Canada for the decision. There are other issues that need to be addressed as a result of this decision, specifically protocol management and regulatory management," Daniels said. "Our paper will address those issues at that time.
"It's not done yet....Senior people in the dairy industry agree," he says.
"It's going to be an interesting donnybrook yet." - Don Stoneman
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
back
George Morris, 1909-1999
Those flowing fields of tassels that are the face of farming in Ontario's corn country can be traced back to two Georges: University of Guelph corn breeder George Jones and Merlin cattleman-corn pioneer George Morris.George Jones did the breeding research and George Morris, who died Jan. 13 in Chatham at age 89, did the farm trials, says Larry Martin, CEO of the Guelph-based George Morris Centre that bears its founder's name.
Morris, who died following a stroke suffered in December, is Ontario agriculture's classic self-made man. With little formal education - he would rail that he left school on the first day after being wrongly accused by a teacher - he took over the family farm in Merlin, now Chatham-Kent, at age 14 when his father, George Sr., died.
Morris was born in High River, Alta., but came to Ontario as a young boy. An early proponent of corn feeding cattle, Morris dealt cattle and pigs across Ontario, and was a founding member of the Ontario Grain Corn Council.
He served as president of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association in 1965, moving on to head up the Canadian Cattlemen's Association in 1972-74. As well as helping bring corn to the province, Morris helped start the beef grading system in 1972.
In 1993, Morris was inducted into the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame. He remained active in farming and community work, specifically the Public General Hospital in Chatham, until his death.
Martin says he hopes the George Morris Centre, an independent agri-food think tank that Morris helped kick start in 1989 by selling his vintage red Corvette, can at least come "halfway to being as probing and questioning as George was."
One of the pall bearers at Morris' funeral in Chatham Jan. 16, Martin says the eulogist quipped that Morris would even have wondered "how come three of my pall bearers were named Bob."
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
back