| SUBSCRIBE MARKETS WEATHER LINKS HOME |
|
SHORT TAKESBring on the (Uruguayan?) brisketWhen you think of Texas you think of cattle. But when Better Farming visited there in June, there wasn't a T-bone or a rib-eye steak in sight. When Texans cook up "barbecue" they spread sauce on "brisket," a cut that Canadians would generally rather grind into hamburger.The average rural Texan likely can't afford a good steak, says John Masswohl, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association's international affairs director. Canada isn't in the United States beef market because of BSE, and Uruguayan beef is filling at least part of the gap. Beef prices are so far out of whack that Uruguayan beef imports are increasing exponentially in spite of high tariffs on all but a small percentage of the imports. In fact, Uruguay's exports to the United States have risen from 3,000 tonnes in 2002 to 132,000 tonnes in 2003. As of early June, Uruguayan-sourced American imports (ED: can't we just say American imports from Uruguay, or is this not the same thing?) were on track to reach 300,000 tonnes. That is a 100-fold increase in three years, Masswohl points out. The "really distressing part" is that only the first 20,000 tonnes are duty free, Masswohl says. There is a 26.5 per cent tariff on the rest. The duty was designed to be prohibitively high and to keep beef products out. This just shows how badly beef prices are out of line with reality. "There's something wrong with the pricing," he concludes.
He thinks that R-CALF's efforts to keep Canadian beef out of the United States are backfiring. "I can't think of a better way for R-CALF to boost the South American beef industry," he says.BF
Maybe Paris Hilton is overexposedThe experience of CKE Restaurants should make companies who insist on paying big bucks to overexposed celebrities in order to flog their products think twice. The California-based company's "racy" advertisement featuring scantily-clad celebrity Paris Hilton soaping down an expensive automobile while eating a spicy hamburger caused so much controversy with conservative media watchdogs in the United States that they tried to have it pulled off the air. CKE responded by putting the ad on the Internet. A columnist in Businessweek thought the ad was a great idea, even though it was "pandering to young male's baser instincts for fun." His column was published, however, before the effectiveness of the ad was brought into question.Reports shortly after the ads were made available on the Internet indicate that while the ad drew "millions" of hits from fans of the blonde born-with-silver-spoon-in-her-mouth socialite, it didn't sell more burgers for its sponsor.
CKE's Carl's Jr chain posted a 1.7 per cent gain in store sales for four weeks while Hardee's, CKE's other chain, gained only 0.7 per cent. At least one stock market analyst downgraded CKE's shares because sales didn't meet expectations. Paris, you are spicey, but only when you are free.BF
R-CALF focus switches to Central AmericaA fact-finding mission to Central America sponsored by Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF) recently concluded that Costa Rican ranchers can raise beef for about one-third of the costs in the United States, using cheap vaccines and some veterinary drugs such as Ditrim, which is an injection form of 20 per cent sulfadimidine and four per cent trimetoprim that R-CALF complains is banned in the United States. Cheap labour and rich high protein grass are also factors in lower cost of production.The United States is considering passage of a free trade agreement with Central America. When R-CALF focuses on another country that it considers to be a trade threat, trouble usually follows. Witness the grief that R-CALF has caused to the Canadian beef industry because of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Closely related to R-CALF is the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM). It is sponsoring a program called USA Raised. Retailers and restaurants that can meet OCM's requirements will have the right to display USA Raised signage. The initiative is supposed to boost mandatory Country-of-Origin Labelling (COOL), which is supposed to take effect in September 2006 but may be delayed indefinitely. School lunch and military food programs already guarantee that their products were raised domestically and the USA Raised program is expected to have the same requirements.
The USA Raised program may be a litmus test to determine if consumers in places other than North Dakota and Montana actually care where their beef comes from.BF
"Corn Cob Bob" temporarily evictedThe National Capital Commission (NCC) in Ottawa says it was all a mistake made by a low-level bureaucrat. "Corn Cob Bob," the Canadian Renewable Fuel Association's mascot, will be welcome back next year in Major's Hill Park to celebrate Canada Day. However, the role and intent of Shell Canada, a major sponsor of the July 1 celebrations, remains uncertain.CRFA executive director Kory Teneycke charged that the NCC, the bureaucracy that administers parks in the Ottawa region, banned "Corn Corn Bob" from Canada Day activities at the request of petroleum giant Shell Canada, a lead sponsor of the event. Teneycke's charges, made immediately after the celebrations, received widespread publicity and the NCC was inundated with requests for interviews. "It was essentially a mistake," says NCC spokesperson Kathryn Keyes, noting that the NCC wants to support renewable fuels and non-profit organizations. "An employee made a decision without consulting senior management. Senior management was not aware that the CRFA had been rejected. We are speaking to Kory Teneycke about them participating in future events." While the NCC has been mending fences with the renewable fuel association and a very interested urban media, Shell Canada remains silent. Better Farming contacted the Calgary-based oil giant, but at press time its public relations department had not returned phone calls.
Teneycke said in a press release that the mascot had originally been accepted at the NCC sponsored event, but was turned down after a protest by the giant oil company.BF
Fighting humane societies comes with a costA group is organizing itself to take on the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, charging that pet and livestock owners are being unfairly targeted by the organization, which has the authority to seize animals and charge owners if they are deemed to be abusing or neglecting them.The group, based out of Grey and Bruce Counties, is called Animal Action Group Against the SPCA. Founding member Gabriele King says she wants to see SPCAs closed down everywhere, citing abuses that were documented on an American television show as well as in Ontario The group's goal is to fund individuals who are fighting actions by SPCAs and humane societies. Niagara Peninsula farmer Wendell Palmer isn't so sure that fighting is worth the grief. Palmer has taken the Niagara Falls Humane Society to small claims court in Niagara Falls, trying to get back the $20,000 he says that run-ins with officials have cost him. He is due in court the first week of August. More than two years ago, Niagara Falls Humane Society officials, an Ontario agriculture ministry veterinarian and a Niagara Region police officer investigated a complaint that animals weren't being properly taken care of at the retired school teacher's farm, where he raises sheep, dogs and rare breeds of livestock. The veterinarian ordered a rare Large Black boar to be put down, and police reports indicate that in the course of that action, 17 rounds were fired from an officer's service handgun. (The Case of the Limping Boar, Better Farming, November 2003) In October of 2003, Palmer was charged with failing to care for animals in his care. The charges were dropped in September 2004, just a few days before he was due to face his accusers in court. The crown attorney refused to give an explanation.
Palmer says fighting the charges to that point cost him more than $10,000. "If I had known how much it was going to cost me, I wouldn't have fought it either. $20,000 is a lot of money and how much further ahead am I? It's not right that anyone should have to spend that much money," Palmer told Better Farming. BF
No planting of crops on road allowancesWhen prices are good, so the story goes, farmers tend to plant corn "fencerow to fencerow." And what do they do when prices aren't good and the fencerows have been torn down?In early May, the municipality of West Perth, centred around the town of Mitchell, warned farmers not to plant crops on the 66-foot-wide road allowance on rural side roads or risk having municipal workers cut crops down while trimming weeds and grass. Fencerows were taken down years ago to allow for better access by big machinery. In some instances, the roadside is level with the fields and the temptation is there to run the planter one more time down the edge of the field. In Hibbert Ward, for example, farms were surveyed in 100-acre blocks, 200 rods long by 80 rods wide. (A rod is 16.5 feet). By planting an extra eight 30-inch rows of corn down the road allowance on a side road, a farmer can squeeze about nine-tenths of land from the 20 feet of road allowance along a side road beside a 100-acre farm.
It's mostly the same farmers who do this year after year, says the municipality's operations manager, Mike Kraemer. While there had been no instances found of planting on roadsides by July 1, there have sometimes been confrontations between farmers and road workers over the cutting. Road safety is an issue, particularly visibility at intersections, Kraemer says. BF
|