This Blog has now been active for 105 days, so I thought it would be a good time to assess our progress so far.
The graph above shows data for all 72 postings that have been done so far. The vertical axis is on a logarithmic scale. It appears that a posting gains most of its audience views within the first 72 hours, then slowly accumulates additional views the longer it is posted. That is why yesterday's posting (ie. Days Posted= 1 day) shows as significantly above the trend line.
The second anomaly in the above graph is the April 2, 2013 posting Choose: Frankenstein Chicken, or Naturally Raised Chicken? which so far has collected a total of 1,819 views, likely due to the interest of people who have been chronically poisoned with arsenic-laced chicken without their consent.
Other than that, everything seems about the same for all the postings made so far. When we look at the exponential slope of the thin black trend line above, we see that the average posting is gaining additional views at 3.12% per day that it is posted. That rate has a doubling time of 22.4 days (ie. every 22.4 days, the number of views for the typical posting doubles; 70/3.12%= 22.4 days).
Using the average exponential gain for the average posting over time, and assuming 40 views on average in the first day, the cumulative aggregate total views for the average posting is shown above.
I'm quite pleased with that. This means the word is getting out there.
People are paying attention.
They're getting informed.
Soon, they may get personally involved.
After that, some may get radicalized, and demand that change for the better must occur immediately.
I wonder when those demands for change will start to occur?
A blog to communicate, discuss, and advocate for the civil rights and important role Small Flock Poultry Farmers can play (and should play) in Canadian Society. Small Flockers are on the side of justice & truth, and against privilege & power. Unfortunately, the more we compromise with privilege and power, the more we reduce the capacity for truth and justice.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Spent Chicken = Cheating Chicken
Discussions about "spent chicken" or "spent fowl" have always been a hot topic in the chicken coops of Canada. Now however, it's also a hot topic to the "Johnny Come Lately" Chicken Farmers of Canada ("CFC"), and Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO").
For wannabe farmers, "spent chicken" includes old egg laying chickens who are past their prime, or old hens and roosters from egg hatcheries. Due to the limited alternatives, they are often sold for close to nothing, so the cost is just the trucking expenses to the slaughter plant. The alternative to to kill them on-site and landfill them.
I did an advanced Google search of CFC's website. It is first mentioned in the CFC's 2010 Annual Report about "spent fowl" imports, declaring it as a critical priority for 2011.
For CFO, a similar Google advanced search turned up the following in their April 10, 2013 News Insight
But unexpected? If CFC had it as critical priority in their 2010 Annual Report released on Mar. 18, 2011 why is it such a shock and surprise to CFO 2 years later? Do these guys at CFC and CFO talk to each other?
When did this really become an issue?
Let's look at the data from Statistics Canada.
The graph above shows data from StatsCan CANSIM Table 002-0010 (Add/Remove data to suit). There appears to be "business as usual" for 1999 to 2002, but a statistically significant dip, with a correlation coefficient of 74.7% is plainly visible as of 2003 (see yellow line in graph above). That should have been their first clue. Rarely is there a statistically significant change without a reason. After 2003, the spent chicken imports start to rise, and rise rapidly at an exponential rate of increase.
The leaders of this "spent chicken solution" become more emboldened. The leaders gain followers. Soon, the majority of the players in the SM system are doing it. Once it starts to rise, it goes up exponentially, at a rate of 10.79% per year increase.
That means the imports of spent chicken are doubling every 6.5 years (70/10.79%/yr= 6.5 years).
It is obvious that the change started in 2003, and could have been noticed then. CFC, CFO, the government, and all others in the SM system should have been aware as of 2003. However, CFC goes on the public record about this issue in 2010, and CFO officially noticed it in April 2013.
CFC and CFO, the Rip Van Winkles of the chicken industry, asleep at the switch for 7 and 10 years respectfully, finally comes out of their comas. Some of you may have thought that CFC's and CFO's catatonic comas made them permanent vegetables, but you were wrong. They came back to life, and finally noticed the world around them.
Of course, they would jump right to it, and get this spent chicken problem resolved, right? Not so fast. We're not talking about Flash, the Superhero, we're talking about CFC and CFO.
For CFC, its been 3 years since they noticed the trend, and they are still wringing their hands in worry and desperation.
CFC says there is no way to tell at the border if it's an old layer or a young broiler. I beg to differ. Check out the Canadian Border Services Agency document which defines a "spent fowl":
Why are we still waiting 3 years since coma time, or the 10 years elapsed from when it was first discoverable?
These are the same guys who love crushing Small Flockers like a bug, but they can't take action about processors and others who have invented a method to get around the Supply Management ("SM") rules that everybody loves to hate.
I happen to disagree, but CFC and CFO are supposed to love SM, and think its the greatest system and solution. Why don't they defend their false god with their lives when it is threatened like this?
Why are CFC and CFO standing in the middle of the road, frozen with fear in the headlights of the approaching car? If they think that SM is the savior of Canada, and SM is under attack, why won't they act? Does CFC and CFO have friends in high places with the importers?
Have they been bought off? Is this willful blindness by CFC, CFO, and others?
Assuming that the 1999-2006 baseline of 47.29 Million kg per year is legitimate spent fowl, then the current level of imports of 107.2 Million kg contains 59.91 Million Kg of Cheating Chicken, contrary to SM's rules. CFC tells us that about 49% of that spent chicken is arriving as Boneless breast meat, a Canadian favorite.
If this 59.91 Million kg of Cheating Chicken wasn't imported, somebody in Canada would be growing it. Notice that quota in Canada has been close to flat during this period. CFC reports in 2012 that per capita chicken consumption is flat. They also report a total production of 1091 Million kg. eviscerated for Quota Periods A-108 to A-114, or an average of 155.86 Million kg. eviscerated per quota period. Therefore this Cheating Chicken is 5.49% of 2012's production. If you are reading this, please be sure not tell tell any of the quota-holding mega farmers, as they may get upset with CFC and CFO as to why they are cut back while the Cheating Chicken continues for more than 10 years at the farmer's expense.
At a doubling every 6.5 years for Cheating Chicken, we only have to wait another 37.5 years for Cheating Chicken to become the entire chicken supply for all of Canada. Supply Management for chicken will finally be a dead dinosaur in just another 37.5 years at current rates. Mark your calendars for Year 2050, the Wicked Witch of Chicken Supply Management will finally be dead.
The 2013 Canadian average retail price of whole chicken is $5.51 per kg., and the boneless, skinless breast is $11.27 per kg., so we have a weighted average price of $8.39 per kg. At 59.91 Million kg per year of Cheating Chicken, that's a total $502.65 Million per year in Cheating Chicken. Not a bad source of extra cash for the importers.
As bad as it is for quota-holding producers, it's worse for the Canadian consumer. Remember, it's the Canadian consumers who pay the high price of these windfall profits gained by the importers.
Will the gouging, disrespect, and persecution of the Canadian consumer never end at the hands of the SM Mafia?
If the importers of this chicken had to pay the proper import tariff, it would have been 238% or at least $1.67/kg under Tariff Code 0207.11, 0207.12, 0207.13, or 0207.14 (see CBSA's Tariffs current version as of July 1, 2015). This is lost revenue to the Canadian government, money that will now have to be taken out of the wallets of Canadians.
When will the suffering and abuse be stopped?
For wannabe farmers, "spent chicken" includes old egg laying chickens who are past their prime, or old hens and roosters from egg hatcheries. Due to the limited alternatives, they are often sold for close to nothing, so the cost is just the trucking expenses to the slaughter plant. The alternative to to kill them on-site and landfill them.
I did an advanced Google search of CFC's website. It is first mentioned in the CFC's 2010 Annual Report about "spent fowl" imports, declaring it as a critical priority for 2011.
For CFO, a similar Google advanced search turned up the following in their April 10, 2013 News Insight
Sounds pretty serious.
"However, we are now faced with an unexpected, unprecedented, and potentially catastrophic level of spent fowl imports which undermines the principles of the alignment initiative."
But unexpected? If CFC had it as critical priority in their 2010 Annual Report released on Mar. 18, 2011 why is it such a shock and surprise to CFO 2 years later? Do these guys at CFC and CFO talk to each other?
When did this really become an issue?
Let's look at the data from Statistics Canada.
The graph above shows data from StatsCan CANSIM Table 002-0010 (Add/Remove data to suit). There appears to be "business as usual" for 1999 to 2002, but a statistically significant dip, with a correlation coefficient of 74.7% is plainly visible as of 2003 (see yellow line in graph above). That should have been their first clue. Rarely is there a statistically significant change without a reason. After 2003, the spent chicken imports start to rise, and rise rapidly at an exponential rate of increase.
The leaders of this "spent chicken solution" become more emboldened. The leaders gain followers. Soon, the majority of the players in the SM system are doing it. Once it starts to rise, it goes up exponentially, at a rate of 10.79% per year increase.
That means the imports of spent chicken are doubling every 6.5 years (70/10.79%/yr= 6.5 years).
It is obvious that the change started in 2003, and could have been noticed then. CFC, CFO, the government, and all others in the SM system should have been aware as of 2003. However, CFC goes on the public record about this issue in 2010, and CFO officially noticed it in April 2013.
CFC and CFO, the Rip Van Winkles of the chicken industry, asleep at the switch for 7 and 10 years respectfully, finally comes out of their comas. Some of you may have thought that CFC's and CFO's catatonic comas made them permanent vegetables, but you were wrong. They came back to life, and finally noticed the world around them.
For CFC, its been 3 years since they noticed the trend, and they are still wringing their hands in worry and desperation.
CFC says there is no way to tell at the border if it's an old layer or a young broiler. I beg to differ. Check out the Canadian Border Services Agency document which defines a "spent fowl":
MEMORANDUM D10-18-4 August 14, 2009
Whole chicken can be inspected for the skin and breastbone condition. I can tell the difference between an old layer and a young broiler, so I think a CBSA officer can too. For non-breast and skinless products, it's a little more difficult, and this may require a certificate from a USDA inspector who witnessed the processing of the birds.
IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND THE IMPORT CONTROL LIST (ICL)
25.(e) “spent fowl” means a mature bird of the species Gallus Domesticus that does not have a flexible cartilage at the posterior end of the sternum and does not have tender meat or soft skin of smooth texture. Only the older birds develop a bony sternum, also referred to as a breast or keel bone, as opposed to the young birds that have a youthful cartilaginous sternum. The primary purpose of these fowls is not for meat production but for other purposes, for example, hens for laying. Once these fowls are no longer productive, they are considered “spent” and, at that point, are destined for slaughter. “Spent fowl” are also referred to as stewing hens, boiling fowls, pot roasting hens, mature chickens, or old roosters (see tariff items 0105.92.10, 0105.93.10, 0207.11.10, 0207.12.10, 0207.13.10, 0207.14.10, 1601.00.23, 1602.32.11, and 1602.32.92).
Why are we still waiting 3 years since coma time, or the 10 years elapsed from when it was first discoverable?
These are the same guys who love crushing Small Flockers like a bug, but they can't take action about processors and others who have invented a method to get around the Supply Management ("SM") rules that everybody loves to hate.
I happen to disagree, but CFC and CFO are supposed to love SM, and think its the greatest system and solution. Why don't they defend their false god with their lives when it is threatened like this?
Why are CFC and CFO standing in the middle of the road, frozen with fear in the headlights of the approaching car? If they think that SM is the savior of Canada, and SM is under attack, why won't they act? Does CFC and CFO have friends in high places with the importers?
Have they been bought off? Is this willful blindness by CFC, CFO, and others?
Assuming that the 1999-2006 baseline of 47.29 Million kg per year is legitimate spent fowl, then the current level of imports of 107.2 Million kg contains 59.91 Million Kg of Cheating Chicken, contrary to SM's rules. CFC tells us that about 49% of that spent chicken is arriving as Boneless breast meat, a Canadian favorite.
If this 59.91 Million kg of Cheating Chicken wasn't imported, somebody in Canada would be growing it. Notice that quota in Canada has been close to flat during this period. CFC reports in 2012 that per capita chicken consumption is flat. They also report a total production of 1091 Million kg. eviscerated for Quota Periods A-108 to A-114, or an average of 155.86 Million kg. eviscerated per quota period. Therefore this Cheating Chicken is 5.49% of 2012's production. If you are reading this, please be sure not tell tell any of the quota-holding mega farmers, as they may get upset with CFC and CFO as to why they are cut back while the Cheating Chicken continues for more than 10 years at the farmer's expense.
At a doubling every 6.5 years for Cheating Chicken, we only have to wait another 37.5 years for Cheating Chicken to become the entire chicken supply for all of Canada. Supply Management for chicken will finally be a dead dinosaur in just another 37.5 years at current rates. Mark your calendars for Year 2050, the Wicked Witch of Chicken Supply Management will finally be dead.
The 2013 Canadian average retail price of whole chicken is $5.51 per kg., and the boneless, skinless breast is $11.27 per kg., so we have a weighted average price of $8.39 per kg. At 59.91 Million kg per year of Cheating Chicken, that's a total $502.65 Million per year in Cheating Chicken. Not a bad source of extra cash for the importers.
As bad as it is for quota-holding producers, it's worse for the Canadian consumer. Remember, it's the Canadian consumers who pay the high price of these windfall profits gained by the importers.
Will the gouging, disrespect, and persecution of the Canadian consumer never end at the hands of the SM Mafia?
If the importers of this chicken had to pay the proper import tariff, it would have been 238% or at least $1.67/kg under Tariff Code 0207.11, 0207.12, 0207.13, or 0207.14 (see CBSA's Tariffs current version as of July 1, 2015). This is lost revenue to the Canadian government, money that will now have to be taken out of the wallets of Canadians.
When will the suffering and abuse be stopped?
Monday, June 10, 2013
Getting Ready: OMAF Tribunal Appeal
Now that Ontario's FPMC (Farm Products Marketing Commission) has refused to intercede on the behalf of Small Flockers against Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO"), our next course of action is to Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Appeals Tribunal ("OMAF Tribunal").
I sent an email to the Tribunal, asking a number of questions about this important next step.
I got a very nice response from them, very helpful, they answered each question in a straight forward manner. I was impressed. Well done to OMAF's Gloria Marco-borys and/or her team!
If the Tribunal operates as well as this initial response, there is hope for us yet.
My questions and OMAF's answers are here.
I sent an email to the Tribunal, asking a number of questions about this important next step.
I got a very nice response from them, very helpful, they answered each question in a straight forward manner. I was impressed. Well done to OMAF's Gloria Marco-borys and/or her team!
If the Tribunal operates as well as this initial response, there is hope for us yet.
My questions and OMAF's answers are here.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
USA vs. Canadian Chicken to Feed Price Ratios
Why is US chicken getting cheaper and cheaper, yet Canadian chicken is getting more and more expensive?
Let's take a look at the underlying data.
About 60% of the cost of producing chicken meat is the cost of the feed. Corn and soybean meal are usually two of the main components in chicken feed. Here is some USA data on the price comparison between Chicago Board of Trade ("CBOT") 48% soybean meal and whole fresh chicken at the dock in Georgia USA. As you can see, chicken-soya ratio is dropping, meaning better & better yields and efficiency.
The Canadian price of soybean meal is usually defined by FOB Hamilton, as the majority of soybeans are grown in Ontario, there are two large mills in Ontario (Bunge in Hamilton and ADM in Windsor), comparable in tonnage. Here is a graph that shows soybean meal price FOB Hamilton compared to CBOT. Note there is a small consistent premium price for FOB Hamilton, about $25 per MT. Trucking costs for the feed to the farm is usually another $20/MT. I suggest that this indicates prices are maintained the same in Chicago and Hamilton, with arbitrage and trucking charges being the only difference. Free trade at work. If either Chicago or Hamilton get arrogant in its pricing, soybean meal quickly gets trucked from one centre to the other, regaining competitive balance.
Below, we can see a comparison of Canada vs. USA on their chicken to soybean price ratio, Canada in red and USA in blue. Note that Canada is steadily rising, while USA is steadily dropping. US is getting better, Canada is getting worse.
Why?
I suggest Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") has some explaining to do. Does anybody at CFO look at data like this? If not, why not? Isn't that something they should be doing, helping to explain trends to their member farmers, and help them decide that this is important, and needs to be addressed.
Does CFO even care?
Is CFO chicken of facing the truth?
Or does CFO prefer to stick their head in the sand like an ostrich?
Let's take a look at the underlying data.
About 60% of the cost of producing chicken meat is the cost of the feed. Corn and soybean meal are usually two of the main components in chicken feed. Here is some USA data on the price comparison between Chicago Board of Trade ("CBOT") 48% soybean meal and whole fresh chicken at the dock in Georgia USA. As you can see, chicken-soya ratio is dropping, meaning better & better yields and efficiency.
The Canadian price of soybean meal is usually defined by FOB Hamilton, as the majority of soybeans are grown in Ontario, there are two large mills in Ontario (Bunge in Hamilton and ADM in Windsor), comparable in tonnage. Here is a graph that shows soybean meal price FOB Hamilton compared to CBOT. Note there is a small consistent premium price for FOB Hamilton, about $25 per MT. Trucking costs for the feed to the farm is usually another $20/MT. I suggest that this indicates prices are maintained the same in Chicago and Hamilton, with arbitrage and trucking charges being the only difference. Free trade at work. If either Chicago or Hamilton get arrogant in its pricing, soybean meal quickly gets trucked from one centre to the other, regaining competitive balance.
Why?
I suggest Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") has some explaining to do. Does anybody at CFO look at data like this? If not, why not? Isn't that something they should be doing, helping to explain trends to their member farmers, and help them decide that this is important, and needs to be addressed.
Does CFO even care?
Is CFO chicken of facing the truth?
Or does CFO prefer to stick their head in the sand like an ostrich?
Friday, June 7, 2013
What changed first, SM or the Tariff?
Last June, Susan Mann of Better Farming wrote about Al Mussell's published report (Sr. Research Associate at George Morris Centre in Guelph ON) suggesting that Supply Management ("SM") didn't need to be scrapped, we just need to allow greater access to the Canadian markets to satisfy our trade partners under WTO (World Trade Organization) and/or TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership).
The article says that foreign commodity producers want access to Canadian markets, the second largest in the TPP negotiations. I agree. However importers don't have access to all of Canada's market.
For chicken as an example, foreign chicken can enter Canada at an import tariff cost of 0% (NAFTA) or 5% (WTO) under TRQ. TRQ quantities are limited to just 7.5% of the total kg consumed in Canada. After that miniscule market access is exceeded, importer must pay a 285% import tariff cost.
100% of the 2nd largest market is significant, and worth going after under TPP and WTO. 7.5% of the second largest market is more trouble than its worth, for you need bilingual labels, learn all of the intricacies of the Canadian market, form a Canadian supply chain, etc.
All of the above keeps Canadians paying for the most expensive chicken meat prices in the world.
The farmers get some of that gravy as COP (Cost of Production), but the vast majority of those price gouging profits go to others up & down the food chain (ie. chicken feed companies, processors, supplementary processors, distributors, retail, etc.). Gravy train for everybody, except the consumer, who pays for it all.
If the 285% import tariff was reduced, more foreign chicken would soon enter Canada, and everybody would take a hit to their gravy train. Eventually, as everybody in the chicken supply chain got hungrier, retail prices would drop. Anybody working under the arcane rules of SM would be at a considerable disadvantage, and they'd start to drop like flies, or be bought up by foreign suppliers for pennies on the $, because an asset caught in SM's web of fossilized bureaucracy is close to worthless as the import tariffs drop farther & farther.
Dropping import tariffs without first removing SM is a good way to kill the entire domestic chicken production system.
I think we need food security first & foremost, which means we want to ensure we can feed ourselves, even when imported chicken is no longer available.
Same logic applies to all other SM commodities.
That means we must keep the 285% import tariffs on chicken until something else is changed first. I wonder what that something else will be? Do you think it might be SM?
The article says that foreign commodity producers want access to Canadian markets, the second largest in the TPP negotiations. I agree. However importers don't have access to all of Canada's market.
For chicken as an example, foreign chicken can enter Canada at an import tariff cost of 0% (NAFTA) or 5% (WTO) under TRQ. TRQ quantities are limited to just 7.5% of the total kg consumed in Canada. After that miniscule market access is exceeded, importer must pay a 285% import tariff cost.
100% of the 2nd largest market is significant, and worth going after under TPP and WTO. 7.5% of the second largest market is more trouble than its worth, for you need bilingual labels, learn all of the intricacies of the Canadian market, form a Canadian supply chain, etc.
All of the above keeps Canadians paying for the most expensive chicken meat prices in the world.
The farmers get some of that gravy as COP (Cost of Production), but the vast majority of those price gouging profits go to others up & down the food chain (ie. chicken feed companies, processors, supplementary processors, distributors, retail, etc.). Gravy train for everybody, except the consumer, who pays for it all.
If the 285% import tariff was reduced, more foreign chicken would soon enter Canada, and everybody would take a hit to their gravy train. Eventually, as everybody in the chicken supply chain got hungrier, retail prices would drop. Anybody working under the arcane rules of SM would be at a considerable disadvantage, and they'd start to drop like flies, or be bought up by foreign suppliers for pennies on the $, because an asset caught in SM's web of fossilized bureaucracy is close to worthless as the import tariffs drop farther & farther.
Dropping import tariffs without first removing SM is a good way to kill the entire domestic chicken production system.
I think we need food security first & foremost, which means we want to ensure we can feed ourselves, even when imported chicken is no longer available.
Same logic applies to all other SM commodities.
That means we must keep the 285% import tariffs on chicken until something else is changed first. I wonder what that something else will be? Do you think it might be SM?
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Off to the Tribunal we Go!
Slowly but surely, we are moving on my complaint against Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO").
Quick Recap
Feb. 5, 2013 I filed my complaint with CFO
Feb. 25, 2013 CFO thanks me for my feedback.
To me, it seems CFO has filed it in the round filing cabinet on the floor (ie. garbage can)
Feb. 25, 2013 I request hearing of my complaint before CFO Board
Mar. 1, 2013 CFO acknowledges my request, Board will consider my request
Mar. 21, 2013 CFO Board decides to decline hearing, and waive their right to hear my complaint
Mar. 26, 2013 I send letter asking FPMC to intercede on my behalf with my complaint against CFO
May 23, 2013 FPMC refuses to intercede with CFO, refers me to OMAF Tribunal
June 6, 2013 I send email to Tribunal asking for information on how to proceed with complaint.
Four months of bureaucracy and delays. It seems Canada grows some of the best bureaucracies and red tape in the world.
I'm going to need lots of help & advice on this Tribunal. I assume we have one chance to get it right. I've never done a Tribunal before so I'm looking forward to suggestions from all the jailhouse lawyers out there to advise & guide me on how to make this effort successful.
Quick Recap
Feb. 5, 2013 I filed my complaint with CFO
Feb. 25, 2013 CFO thanks me for my feedback.
To me, it seems CFO has filed it in the round filing cabinet on the floor (ie. garbage can)
Feb. 25, 2013 I request hearing of my complaint before CFO Board
Mar. 1, 2013 CFO acknowledges my request, Board will consider my request
Mar. 21, 2013 CFO Board decides to decline hearing, and waive their right to hear my complaint
Mar. 26, 2013 I send letter asking FPMC to intercede on my behalf with my complaint against CFO
May 23, 2013 FPMC refuses to intercede with CFO, refers me to OMAF Tribunal
June 6, 2013 I send email to Tribunal asking for information on how to proceed with complaint.
Four months of bureaucracy and delays. It seems Canada grows some of the best bureaucracies and red tape in the world.
I'm going to need lots of help & advice on this Tribunal. I assume we have one chance to get it right. I've never done a Tribunal before so I'm looking forward to suggestions from all the jailhouse lawyers out there to advise & guide me on how to make this effort successful.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Clarification of non-SM Product Auctions
In a previous Blog post, I outlined our draft plan for ending Supply Management ("SM")for all of Canada.
I proposed a truncated k-double auction. By the number of inquiries I have received on this, it appears I need to supply some more details on this proposal.
When doing a double auction, there are a few optional methods that need to be specified. My suggestions are as follows:
This posting has been used to upgrade the draft plan from Rev. #3
I proposed a truncated k-double auction. By the number of inquiries I have received on this, it appears I need to supply some more details on this proposal.
When doing a double auction, there are a few optional methods that need to be specified. My suggestions are as follows:
- Everybody who submits a bid or ask will pay/receive the same price if cleared. For somebody who was willing to pay a lot more, they end up getting it cheaper than they hoped for. If someone bid too low, their bid won't be accepted as it was below the strike price that everybody enjoys. If someone was asking for a low price, they may end up getting a lot more than what they had asked for. If they asked for too high a price, their asking may be above the strike price, and they won't be selling their commodity during this auction. This system minimizes the need for guessing what everybody else is bidding.
- I suggest there will be multiple auctions for each quota period. This enables producers and processors to make a recovery play if their bid was way off in the previous round. There can be a problem with multiple auctions. If everybody plays nicely, there won't be a problem, they re-set their bids (if they so choose), and they can get their commodity bought or sold in the next round. However, some may think they have the other side over a barrel. For example, a producer might figure than he can leave his chicken barn empty if he has to, but the processing plant absolutely MUST have a supply of chicken, so the producer significantly jacks up his asking price for a second round of auctions. It can tend to polarize the remaining bids to the extremes of the pole, rather than bringing buyers and sellers together.
I therefore suggest that the first auction is only for within your home district. If you are not located in that District (buyer or seller alike), you cannot put in an offer. For Chicken Farmers of Ontario, there are 9 Districts, and each producer and processor would submit their bid/ask to the auction for their home district.
If they were not totally successful in buying/selling all that they needed, they would have a second chance in the province-wide auction. With more players, if they wish to play games with their bids, they will most likely be left sitting on the sidelines with no transactions in the next quota period.
District Map for Chicken Farmers of Ontario
A third auction can be held for those who still want to sell/buy, adding in additional buyers/sellers from within Canada but from a different province (ie. inter-provincial bids).
A final auction can be held for those who still want to buy/sell that would include inter-provincial as well as foreign bidders.
For transportation purposes, all winning bids/asks will be matched at their strike price so as to minimize transportation costs, as previously defined.
If someone failed in all 4 rounds of auctions, they weren't trying hard enough, or they need to find a new career.
Automated by software on-line, each auction could be done in 15 minutes. Time would be allowed between auctions for people to reconsider their positions, seek advice, and to type in their chosen bids.
This system will give preference to domestic production, if the buyers & sellers so choose. If the local suppliers or producers are bad actors, customers will skip that auction and go to the next. If the end, the customer gets what they want. - Some commodities are done in batches (eg. broilers, turkeys). Other SM-commodities have a continuous flow (eg. milk, table eggs), which cannot be easily shut off and re-started. This could cause a market imbalance between producers and processors. A milk plant can more easily clean out the plant, lay everybody off, and wait for better milk prices, or better auction results. The farmer isn't so lucky. To make things more balanced, it is suggested that long term "take-or-pay" contracts could be established for each commodity, for example a 3 to 5 year production quantity, well in advance of the start of the start of delivery. When that is close to expiry, the farmer can decide to retire that cow, or continue milking her and sell her milk on the more lucrative spot market (ie. month by month).
This posting has been used to upgrade the draft plan from Rev. #3
Monday, June 3, 2013
Meat Regs: More at stake than meat
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food ("OMAF") is reviewing their Meat Regulations. When they held public information meetings on their proposed changes, I attended the Sudbury meeting. See my previous report after their public information meeting.
I finally finished it and filed Small Flocker's recommendations and comments with OMAF. Small Flocker's comments and recommended improvements on Ontario's current Meat Regulations are available here
Some of the issues I raised are as follows:
Food Borne Illness Outbreaks
Food borne illness in the US is estimated at $77.7 Billion per year. We might therefore estimate Canada's impact at $7.77 Billion per year, 10% of US total. Similarly based on US results from CDC, Canadian food borne illness outbreaks (ie. many individuals over a large area affected) from meats and poultry (ie. excludes fish & seafood) probably account for 22% (n=210,000) of the outbreaks, 22% (n= 572) of the resulting hospitalizations, and 29% (n=18) of the deaths.
Sporadic Food Poisoning
Add to the outbreaks described above are the sporadic food borne illnesses (1 or a few people, closely contained). More than 9 million persons each year in the USA have a food borne illness caused by a major pathogen, so Canada probably has 900,000 sporadic illnesses per year.
Poor Diet due to high cost of Meat
There is growing understanding by food nutrition experts that excess dietary carbohydrates are causing or contributing to significant incidence and prevalence of multiple diseases such as obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, cancer, etc. See Dr. Lustig here and here, Gary Taubes here, and Dr. Jay Wortman here and CBC Television Documentary here
Health care is more than 40% of Ontario’s Provincial budget, and these dietary influenced diseases are directly and indirectly related to most of these health care costs, possibly up to 70% of these direct and indirect health care costs (ie. 70% of 40%, or a grand total of 28% of Ontario’s budget caused by poor diet). Ontario’s 2013-2014 budget for healthcare is $48.9 Billion per year. This total diet-related tax burden is suggested as 70% of this total annual budget, representing $34.23 Billion per year, a significant cost to Ontario. The cost of food borne illness can be added as well, further raising the stakes.
I suggest that this $34.23+ Billion health care cost trumps the total value-added GDP of $8 Billion per year that is created by Ontario’s meat industry.
If meat protein and the accompanying animal fat is more affordable and available, this can help reduce these food-induced risks and disease burden for Ontario.
When considering the Meat Regulation amendments and these specific recommendation, it is suggested that this indirect cost to Ontario of $34.23 Billion per year be kept in mind.
Meat Export Opportunities
I previously posted about the appalling, weak-kneed meat export business Canada has for chicken. In 2012, CFC reported that Canada produced 1.0247 Billion kg of chicken, at a price of $1.80/kg or higher. We calculate a total value of $1.844 Billion. If OECD exports can allow us to increase our production 5 times 2012 levels, that's an additional $7.378 Billion in GDP for Canada. Ontario's share would be about 1/3 of this, or $2.46 Billion. Assuming a 3:1 spin-off effect, that is a total of $7.378 Billion of additional business for Ontario.
Grand Total
When we add up all the above, we get a grand total in excess of $41.61 Billion per year that is directly affected by this Meat Regulation revision process. I hope OMAF gives it the attention it deserves.
There is more at stake than just meat.
I finally finished it and filed Small Flocker's recommendations and comments with OMAF. Small Flocker's comments and recommended improvements on Ontario's current Meat Regulations are available here
Some of the issues I raised are as follows:
Food Borne Illness Outbreaks
Food borne illness in the US is estimated at $77.7 Billion per year. We might therefore estimate Canada's impact at $7.77 Billion per year, 10% of US total. Similarly based on US results from CDC, Canadian food borne illness outbreaks (ie. many individuals over a large area affected) from meats and poultry (ie. excludes fish & seafood) probably account for 22% (n=210,000) of the outbreaks, 22% (n= 572) of the resulting hospitalizations, and 29% (n=18) of the deaths.
Sporadic Food Poisoning
Add to the outbreaks described above are the sporadic food borne illnesses (1 or a few people, closely contained). More than 9 million persons each year in the USA have a food borne illness caused by a major pathogen, so Canada probably has 900,000 sporadic illnesses per year.
Poor Diet due to high cost of Meat
There is growing understanding by food nutrition experts that excess dietary carbohydrates are causing or contributing to significant incidence and prevalence of multiple diseases such as obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, cancer, etc. See Dr. Lustig here and here, Gary Taubes here, and Dr. Jay Wortman here and CBC Television Documentary here
Health care is more than 40% of Ontario’s Provincial budget, and these dietary influenced diseases are directly and indirectly related to most of these health care costs, possibly up to 70% of these direct and indirect health care costs (ie. 70% of 40%, or a grand total of 28% of Ontario’s budget caused by poor diet). Ontario’s 2013-2014 budget for healthcare is $48.9 Billion per year. This total diet-related tax burden is suggested as 70% of this total annual budget, representing $34.23 Billion per year, a significant cost to Ontario. The cost of food borne illness can be added as well, further raising the stakes.
I suggest that this $34.23+ Billion health care cost trumps the total value-added GDP of $8 Billion per year that is created by Ontario’s meat industry.
If meat protein and the accompanying animal fat is more affordable and available, this can help reduce these food-induced risks and disease burden for Ontario.
When considering the Meat Regulation amendments and these specific recommendation, it is suggested that this indirect cost to Ontario of $34.23 Billion per year be kept in mind.
Meat Export Opportunities
I previously posted about the appalling, weak-kneed meat export business Canada has for chicken. In 2012, CFC reported that Canada produced 1.0247 Billion kg of chicken, at a price of $1.80/kg or higher. We calculate a total value of $1.844 Billion. If OECD exports can allow us to increase our production 5 times 2012 levels, that's an additional $7.378 Billion in GDP for Canada. Ontario's share would be about 1/3 of this, or $2.46 Billion. Assuming a 3:1 spin-off effect, that is a total of $7.378 Billion of additional business for Ontario.
Grand Total
When we add up all the above, we get a grand total in excess of $41.61 Billion per year that is directly affected by this Meat Regulation revision process. I hope OMAF gives it the attention it deserves.
There is more at stake than just meat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




