CFO Talks A Perfect Game

At least Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") knows what people want to hear and read.  Their 2014 Annual Report is a masterpiece in propaganda and political correctness.  While CFO says all the right words, have they provided any objective evidence to prove they achieved any of their talk?
CFO's 2014 Annual Report has been discussed for the last 3 days (see here and here). In their report, CFO says:

Taking Performance to the Next Level

CFO is relentlessly focused on achieving our full potential

Business as usual is not an option.

Our focus is to be better.

Our goal is to make a difference.

And so forth for a total of 32 pages of rainbows and unicorns

So where are all the results from all of CFO's pomposity, promises, and  propaganda?

From an outsider's prospective, I see the following changes and improvements for CFO in 2014:

• CFO re-decorated the office to a brighter shade of red, more consistent with CFO's corporate colours
• CFO has implemented (or is still implementing) their very expensive and complicated SAP software (ie. "CFO Connects") that the Canadian and Ontario taxpayers bought for them.  So much for CFO being "self funded"
• CFO's revenue has dropped by 9.5% from 2013.
• CFO's expenditures have dropped 2.2% from 2013 (before extraordinary items)
• CFO has spent a total of $1.5 Million trying to figure out (or to lobby the government and other stakeholders) how to set the farm gate price of chicken in a more advantageous manner for CFO and its millionaire chicken producers.

CFO says the key projects that it worked on during 2014 are:   price reform, business development (specialty breeds), allocating growth and emergency management systems.

CFO spent 44% less on its projects in 2014 than what they spent in 2013.  Does that mean CFO did 44% less work, or they were 44% more efficient in carrying out their projects?  CFO may know, but they aren't telling the rest of us.  I guess it's a secret.

Stalin's Russia shared more info on their 5 years Plan implementations than what CFO shares.

Perhaps CFO should talk to their many management consultants they hire about how to do Strategic Planning, openness, and accountability.

What I expect is PLAN, DO, CHECK, IMPROVE (Deming's Cycle).

1.  Each year, CFO should say what they are going to do, and the expected results that will be achieved.
   
2. CFO implements their plan.
   
3. CFO checks and measures the effectiveness of their plan implementation, and the results achieved.
   
4. CFO improves their systems (ie. planning, implementation, checking, etc.), then repeat the whole process for the following year.

In that manner, there's openness, transparency, and accountability.

Until that happens, CFO deals solely in lobbying and propaganda; nothing more, nothing less.  Most unfortunate!


 .

OFPMC Has Been Asked, Will they Answer?

Ontario's Farm Products Marketing Board ("OFPMC") has been asked about the new farm gate chicken price method, and the openness transparency accountability of Ontario's Supply Management ("SM") System.  Will they answer in a meaningful way?

This continues our inquiry on CFO's new system of calculating the farm gate price of chicken.  See the previous Blog Postings:

Chicken Pricing: From Bad to Worse

Using Chicken to Rape the Ontario Consumer
OBHECC Hatched Some Answers
As always, time will tell.

I have asked OFPMC about their position on openness, transparency, accountability, and oversight. A copy of my email is available here. Hopefully, we will get their official answers.

OFPMC has a new Board Member, Joseph Dickenson, a beef farmer from Oil Springs in Southern Ontario (near Sarnia).  As a non-SM farmer, will Joe breath new life into the OFPMC?

But wait, there's more.  Of the 8 member Board, three others have their appointments expiring this year.  Will the new appointees tip the balance?

All of these Board Members are constrained by the Act and Regulations.  For the most part, it's the system that determines the outcome. Individuals tend to follow the rules laid down for them, whether the rules are right or wrong.

Only a few individuals will use their own thoughts and moral compass to do what's right.  In that case, the government retains the power to terminate the appointment, and pick somebody else.  Eventually the government's bidding is done.

Since the lobbyists, Big Food, and Big Ag. all speak loudly and profitably, the government listens to them, and the average citizen is often forced to take the crumbs from the millionaire's banquet.  So much for democracy.

Small Flockers are the majority of chicken farmers in Ontario, but we are at the mercy of a handful of millionaire chicken farmers who set the rules in their favor. 

Federal-Provincial Chicken Deal

I previously Blogged about how governments signed the Federal-Provincial Agreement for Chicken 2001 on how they will run the chicken supply management system in Canada, and the duties of the Chicken Farmers of Canada ("CFC") under that deal.  To ensure agreement and compliance, a total of 33 organizations signed on that agreement, binding them to follow the mutually agreed rules.

On Mar. 7 2013, I  asked CFC to provide me objective evidence of their on-going compliance with that Fed-Prov Chicken Agreement.  It's been a month now, and no answer yet.  I wonder why?

To be fair to stakeholders and effective, we need 4 minimum requirements in an agreement such as this:

Mandatory Requirements

1. People have to know what is expected
2. They have to have adequate resources (time, $, technology, knowledge, training, etc.) so that they can implement the various tasks so as to meet the expectations.
3. They have to be able to make timely and accurate measurements of what they achieved, and compare that to what was expected (see Item #1 above).
4. They have to be able to close any gap between what was expected, and what actually occurred.
   

Requirement #1:   Clear Expectations

Of all the Supply Management Systems in Canada for chicken, I like this agreement.  It's well written, and seems to recognize the rights of Canadians, and the duty of the system to serve the public.  For example, it seems to clearly state the expectations, per Requirement #1 above:

1.00 Purpose and Objectives
1.01 This Agreement provides for an orderly marketing system for chicken coordinated in a flexible and market responsive manner having appropriate safeguards so as to provide consistency, predictability and stability in accordance with the following objectives:
a) to optimize sustainable economic activity in the chicken industry;
b) to pursue opportunities in both domestic and international markets;
c) to enhance competitiveness and efficiency in the chicken industry; and
d) to work in the balanced interest of producers, industry stakeholders and consumers. 

One thing that is missing is "continuous improvement", but that is certainly implied by sustainable, optimize, enhance, and efficiency; all of which are in the Agreement.

A second thing is that the Agreement implies, but doesn't specifically state, that all signatory parties have a shared responsibility for acting in a diligent manner so as to achieve the agreed-upon Purpose and Objectives of the Agreement.  For example, we could have a problem if everybody agreed to what was supposed to occur, but everybody assumed that the others would do all or most of the work.

Section 2.01 requires that the Federal and Provincial Ministers recommend legislation so that the Agreement can be implemented.  There is a somewhat ambiguous requirement of these same Ministers to see that the Agreement is effectively implemented.

Section 2.04 requires the Federal and Provincial Ministers to delegate authority to the various Supervisory Boards and Marketing Boards so as to fully implement and maintain the Agreement.

It is unfortunate that this Agreement did not have these same Supervisory Boards and Marketing Boards agree to accept the delegated powers described in Section 2.04, and to apply their best efforts to implement those delegated responsibilities, and to achieve the Purposes and Objectives of this Agreement.

Section 2.05 comes close to assigning responsibility, but close isn't good enough to my way of thinking:

2.05 CFC, the Provincial Supervisory Boards, and
the Provincial Commodity Boards each agree,
within their own jurisdictions and pursuant to
delegated authority, to:
a) exercise or cooperate in the exercise of
legislative powers with respect to the
enactment of marketing plans, regulations
or orders; and
b) establish or cooperate in the establishment
of agreements and policies required to fully
implement and maintain this Agreement.

I see a world of difference between:

• Agreeing to enact &/or establish marketing plans, regulations, orders, agreements, and policies (ie. "define the system"); and
• Applying best efforts and necessary resources to "implement the system".

Unfortunately, the Agreement doesn't require all parties to do their very best to achieve the Agreement's Purposes and Objectives.

Since both CFC and CFO were signatories to this Agreement, I assume they know about all of the Agreement's Purposes and Objectives.

While the words are simple to write, implementing those same words on a consistent basis is much more difficult.  That is what Requirement #2 is all about.


Requirement #2: Necessary Resources

Since CFC is able to charge levies to all chicken farmers and all Provincial Marketing Boards, they have the ability to obtain the necessary funding.  With that funding, they can hire the necessary people, buy the office space, computers, books, and everything else they need so that they have the necessary resources (or can readily get them).  I therefore think that Item #2 can be met.

The same ability of ordering levies is available to Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO"), and I assume the same for all the other Provincial Marketing Boards.

While they could do Item #2 if they wanted to do so, I don't know as of yet how well they actually implemented that part of their responsibilities.


Requirement #3: Measure Results

In Section 3.01 (c), each of the Provincial Commodity Boards are responsible for ensuring that their systems for quota allotment are auditable by CFC.

In Section 4.01 (b), CFC is made responsible for auditing all Provincial quota allocations.

I see a world of difference between auditing quota allocations, and the measuring of compliance to the entire Agreement by all the parties thereto.

Perhaps this is where the governments failed.  There is a lack of openness, accountability, and transparency.

Do you think us mere mortals might get to see the audit results if we ask really nicely for full disclosure?


Requirement #4: Corrective Action

If you don't know how well the Agreement is being implemented, how can you implement corrective actions for non-compliances or inefficiencies or continuous improvement?  You can't.

I guess none of the 33 signatories thought about this.  I wonder why? Most unfortunate.


Fixing the Problems

Under Section 9.01, changes to the Agreement require the unanimous agreement of all parties.  How easy is it going to be to achieve agreement on the comprehensive auditing on a periodic basis for the Agreement and the roles played by all signatory parties?

Maybe that's why this was left out of the Agreement.  Perhaps someone tried to add accountability, but one or more of the parties to the Agreement balked at openness and accountability.

Perhaps with the passing of 12 years, some additional maturity for the parties, and the dire needs felt by Canadians,perhaps now we can seek to fix these shortcomings in the Agreement.

We can only ask, and hope.

Trace Your Chicken

I will tell you a tale of two worlds for Ontario chicken.

CFO wants secrecy.

Small Flock Poultry Farmers ("Small Flockers") believe in openness and accountability.

CFO wants to protect the un-knowable secrets surrounding factory chickens.

Small Flockers want to provide full disclosure, provided in writing to each and every customer.

CFO is afraid of consumers learning about the Frankenstein drug injections into fertilized eggs that will eventually hatch, grow, and become your Sunday roast chicken dinner.

Small Flockers believe that injecting drugs and chemicals into fertilized eggs is an abomination, isn't necessary, is a tell-tale sign of major problem in CFO's systems, and shouldn't be permitted.

CFO wants you to keep buying their imitation chicken products, so they won't tell you about the drugs and chemical fed to the chickens they want you to buy and eat.

Small Flockers believe that proper housing and care for their poultry will minimize or eliminate the need for all or most drugs and chemicals in the poultry feed.  If the birds become ill, they will be treated using known, approved, and safe animal husbandry methods, or euthanized.

CFO whispers behind close doors about the strange and questionable occurrences during the short 56 day life of the factory chicken you will soon eat (from day-old chick to neck-meets-knife at the slaughter plant).

Small Flockers want to protect their birds from predators (eg. foxes, coyotes, etc.), then provide them a low-stress, high quality life in a clean, healthy environment that is as close to natural conditions as can occur.

CFO is pie-eyed and embarrassed when they see what happens to their live birds at the slaughter plant and beyond.

Small Flockers want to control the entire process, from day-old chicks to finished meat in the refrigerator, ready for sale.  If there is a problem, the customers knows who is responsible.

Small Flockers has drafted a Chicken Full Disclosure Form and submitted it to OMAF (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food) for their review and approval.  This form provides full disclosure to customers buying chicken meat at the farm gate.  This form is filled out based on my farm, so other Small Flockers may show different results.

With this form, customers know everything about the meat they are considering for purchase.  It covers the parent rooster & hen who laid the eggs, the hatching of those eggs, and the entire life of the chicken, from chick to a full-sized adult chicken, as well as the details about when and how the bird was slaughtered.

For those of you with Smart Phones, you can access that same info from your smart phone with the following QR Code:

QR Code for Internet link to
Prototype Small Flocker Chicken
Traceability Full Disclosure Form

The above square of "random" black and white squares is called a QR code, the latest thing for smart phones to quickly get info on something.  Take a picture of this QR code with a smart phone, and your phone can decode whatever it says.  In this case, it leads to the same link as the Chicken Full Disclosure Form above, which is the same as the following hyperlink on the Internet.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cwmujds40pb71b8/FarmGateFoodSafetyPlan_A03_BBay.pdf

What works for Small Flockers could also work for CFO.  Here is what I propose:


In this case, the above QR Code is encoded for a non-existent web page at CFO's website that some day may provide full disclosure on a specific batch of chicken, from a specific chicken factory, that was processed at a specific slaughter plant, on a particular day, which CFO has defined at Batch # Z6a1G2H3k8H0f2

The QR code does the same thing as this hyperlink to the same place, except no typing required:
http://cfo.on.ca/trace/Z6a1G2H3k8H0f2

This QR code could follow the chicken everywhere it goes, from factory farm to meat display case at your friendly neighbourhood grocery store.  The labels can be stuck onto every package of chicken at the slaughter plant, or scanned off the bulk container, then printed on the store's custom label.

If you see that label on a chicken for sale, you can scan the QR code and know EVERYTHING about that chicken, before you buy.  If you don't like what you read on the total disclosure for that chicken, you can pass it by.

Perhaps one day, the grocery store will have a terminal by the meat counter where consumers can access a computer database that has all the products in that store.  You can search for the various features you seek, for example:  non_GMO, non-organic, processed by anybody except that infamous slaughter plant that you saw in the news last night as having another food recall AGAIN!  The terminal shows you 3 selections available that meet your criteria, 2 fresh, 1 frozen.  You choose the frozen, and it shows you there are 23 of those items still in stock at Aisle 7, Casement 4B, and a map showing where to walk in the store to pick up your prize selection.

That is power for the consumer.  Small Flockers think CFO should consider that possible solution.

That's why CFO sees Small Flockers as very dangerous and scary, for Small Flockers want to empower the consumer.

CFO wants to keep consumers as un-educated chicken slaves.

That's why this will never happen until the consumers rise up and force the government to force CFO to follow new rules, a new philosophy for food.

It's that simple.  The choice is yours, consumers.