Google+

Thursday, June 20, 2013

10,000 Pageviews & Counting

Since our launch on Feb. 28, 2013 we have received 10,000 pageviews from our fans and the morbidly curious.


We need to get every eligible voter in Ontario to be aware of this issue, estimated at 8.3 million voters.  Starting with 1 person, then doubling to 2,4, 8, 16,32,... doubling our exposure each time until we get to 8.3 million, this will require 23 doublings.

So far, we have achieved 13.27 doublings, which is 57.7% of our goal, so we are more than half way there.  As can be seen in the above graph, our progress has been consistent after the first week of startup.

Based on this linear progression of our doublings, if we hold the current trend steady, we project to have 8.3 million pageviews by April 13, 2014.

At that point, we will be ready to launch Phase II of our campaign to end the oppression of  Small Flock Poultry Farmers, and all Canadian citizens by the tyrannical chicken Supply Management system.

Cost of Production (COP), or a COP-out?

A debate is occurring on Better Farming website about Cost Of Production ("COP") and whether Small Flock Poultry Farming could possibly influence the price of chicken in the marketplace, or offer a cost-competitive product comparable to the mega chicken factories.

In a previous Blog posting, we discussed the plans of Chicken Farmer's of Ontario to revamp their method of calculating their COP.

There are many ways to determine a "fair price".  Wikipedia lists a total of 22 different pricing strategies.  I suggest all of them may be appropriate; open to be chosen depending on the seller's many purposes and goals.

Some choose to base their sale price on what competitor's are charging; then going plus, minus, or equal to that competitive price.  They assume competitors know what they are doing, or that is the best price that the market will bear; neither of which is necessarily true.

Some take the approach of pricing based on their immediate, out-of-pocket costs.  This is similar to those who drive a car and think the cost is limited to the gas consumed.  They forget or ignore the oil changes, tires worn out, wear & tear on the vehicle, dropping resale value as a higher km gets recorded on the odometer, depreciation, insurance, etc.  For a car, this is the difference between $0.10/km for gasoline alone vs. $0.50/km for the all-in cost; 5 times more than gasoline alone.

Some choose to price based on the next-best alternative.  It matters not what the actual cost is when you have a better "mouse trap". For example, a CD has the similar cost of production, whether it contains family photos of interest to a select few, music, or specialized software programs worth millions $.

Some Small Flockers see their eggs and meat production as their way of giving back to their community, just the same as being a volunteer at one of the many community groups.  Volunteers changing a "fair price" for their efforts is an oxymoron.

I challenge anybody to dismiss the volunteers in their local community as naive dupes, or to suggest they shouldn't be taken seriously just because they freely give away their time to a cause they feel is important.

Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada recognize this "calling" of being a Small Flocker, when we drafted Principle #13:

"Unlike the over-riding priority for maximum efficiency and profit sought by quota-based poultry farming, small flock farming is also about participation in the circle of life, an expression of life and participation in it, a spiritual practice that transcends the acts themselves; part of a higher purpose."

In the end, Small Flockers suggest that it isn't all about money.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
                                                                                                William Bruce Cameron, 1963.

Friday, June 14, 2013

Congratulations CFO!

Well done CFO!

I hereby congratulate Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") for moving in the right direction with a quantum leap forward.

See, that wasn't so tough.  I did it!  I gave a heart-felt, no sarcasm included, honest complement to CFO.

While I have been a big critic of CFO, CFC, and SM in general, even I can recognize positive events, and give credit when credit is due.

Hopefully this initiative will soon resolve the unfair gouging of consumers by the bogus Feed Conversion Ratios (FCR) and the runaway prices for chicken feed where chicken producers directly benefit every time a supplier raises their prices, but the Canadian consumer gets stuck with the bill.

What has caused this earth shattering complement of CFO to occur?

The June 12, 2013 News Insights from Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") is a watershed in the Canadian chicken industry.

Can we hope that CFO's Board has learned (or been ordered) to be more reasonable, forward thinking, responsive, stewards for the greater good of the public, and all that kind of stuff?

The word cloud for CFO's announcement is shown on the right, words sorted alphabetically, and the size of font for each word is proportional to the frequency of occurrence in the document.  The colours are assigned randomly. 

The words I like seeing most are:
ability, accountability, best interest, best-in-class, collaboratively, confidential, controls, defensibility, disciplined, efficiency, encourage, ensure, ensuring, experienced, expertise, fair, fresh, independent, new, managed, measure, objective, process. relevant, reward, representative, responsive, stakeholders, statistical validity, statistician, strict, study, support, third party, transparency, together, true, and unbiased.
 Most of my favorite words are found in small font sizes, and therefore are of minimal significance for CFO, but it's a start.

We even have CFO's tentative deadline of Dec. 2013 for implementation.

I encourage mega-factory quota-holding chicken producers, readers of this Blog, government, and everybody else to contact CFO and congratulate them.

Send CFO an email here info@ontariochicken.ca 
and let them know how you feel.

Who knows, CFO might like complements better than having boiling oil constantly thrown upon them. They might like it so much, they'll start doing more of the same.

It might become an addictive habit, seeking positive feedback from their stakeholders.

The Board may actually start doing effective leadership and management of their public trust.

If this keeps up, I and my trusty muckraking Blog may soon be out of a job.

Plaintiff for the Poisoned

The Reader's Choice, the all-time favorite Blog posting by readers is where I described the arsenic poisoning forced onto the public so that mega-factory, quota bearing chicken producers could earn an extra 4% profit.

See my April 2, 2013 posting Choose: Frankenstein Chicken, or Naturally Raised Chicken? which so far has collected a total of 1,819 views.

Why so popular?  I guess it's because people get really interested when they learn they have been chronically poisoned with arsenic-laced chicken without their consent.

I've seen reports that estimate 70% to 90% of the chicken from the mega-factory producers was laced with arsenic.  So if you ate chicken you bought from a grocery store between 1970 and 2012, you are a likely victim of arsenic poisoning at the hands of the Chicken Mafia.

If people are so interested in reading about this, perhaps they'd be interested in doing something about this, beyond reading.

I wonder if anybody has (or should) file criminal or civil (negligence, class action, or otherwise) charges against the mega-factory chicken producers for the administering of a noxious substance.

Section 245 of the Canadian Criminal Code reads as follows:
Administering noxious thing
245. Every one who administers or causes to be administered to any person or causes any person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty of an indictable offence and liable


(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, if he intends thereby to endanger the life of or to cause bodily harm to that person; or
(b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if he intends thereby to aggrieve or annoy that person.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 229.
It should be noted that the Crown does not need to prove that the accused knew the substance was noxious, and that intent can be implied by the actions of the accused (see here and  R. v. Burkholder, 1977 ALTASCAD 8 at 32 ).

Where was Health Canada and CFIA when all this was going on?

Is there any Crown Attorney or lawyer in private practice interested in this case, or willing to advise further?

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Posting Progress

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?


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

"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."
Sounds pretty serious.

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":

MEMORANDUM D10-18-4 August 14, 2009

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).
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.

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.

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?