I bet AACo wished it had one of those little gadgets that you whistle to find your keys!
Then they might be able to find the 183,000 cattle Donald Fuller claims are missing ‘ghosts’.
Gee, imagine if we invented a similar tool for the whole Australian cattle industry where we could immediately find where any cattle are. It’d be simple, especially if we made it law to put RFID chips in the ears of all cattle and to register them all on a central database.
There would be all sorts of benefits and little tussles like the one between AACo and Mr Fuller could be solved overnight. (Then, if the cattle existed, AACo and the judge could find against Mr Fuller for defamation and tell him he’s not right about AACo doing ‘interesting’ sales deals ‘off-market’, so to speak, to circumvent full document disclosure about stock numbers – which he says don’t stack up).
(Click to read AACo court case re claim 183,000 cattle ‘missing’ - “The Age”)
Hey! I know, what if NLIS could do this? We could use it instead of our new database gadget. It would also be able to trace cattle for other disease-related reasons.
Unfortunately, as both of these cases require 100% accountability and accuracy, we will unfortunately need to disregard NLIS. i.e. we know from the PWC Audit of NLIS that more stock have gone ‘missing’ from the NLIS dbase since that audit, and if we wanted to rely on it, we would all just be whistling Dixie!
What do you think? Please leave your comment below.
Will more buyers mean more competition for meat stock? One must assume CostCo didn’t get to its leading supermarket position by paying a premium for its product. If that is the case, then presumably they must believe that, 1. There is a market in Australia with enough volume for them to make a good profit. 2. They are going to be able to source ‘product’ to sell at a good enough buy price to make a good profit.
This begs the obvious questions that farmers should/will be asking. Will there be additional competition to drive-up prices?
Will the standard of meat be below that currently provided? If the answer to these questions is, “No”, then how will the CostCo margins be gained in order to compete with such a strong existing duopsony? (2 dominating buyers) What do you think?
Please leave your comments below.
February 9, 2009 at 12:07 pm
· Filed under Uncategorized
Why doesn’t Agforce care for its members and their stock?
One would have thought that a farmers’ representative body would be doing all it can to assist farmers and the welfare of their stock. This should be the case whether the issue is one of animal welfare, fire, drought or flood affected conditions, marketing, sale prices etc
It seems that Executive Committee Member of Cattle Council and AgForce spokesman Peter Hall’s comments dismissing fodder drops to flood marooned stock in Qld amount to a poorly concealed attempt to disguise the fact that AgForce has sat on their hands on this very important animal welfare and property viability issue.
As ABA Chairman, Brad Bellinger stated, “AgForce seems to be oblivious to the welfare duty of care graziers have to their stock and this translates to encouraging and assisting individuals where ever practical, to provide the best standard of animal husbandry. This ranges from humane shooting to fodder drops where possible.”
“AgForce also got it seriously wrong when they claimed that marooned Gulf Country cattle are helicopter shy and would rather risk drowning than accept fodder drops”.
I have seen the pictures of the Clermont floods illustrating that starving stock is more likely to rush to the descending hay than gallop away.
”The AgForce spokesman is plainly wrong considering the photographic evidence Mr Nelsons has provided to the ABA”, added Mr Bellinger.
What concerns me is that groups like MLA, Agforce, NFF, ACC et al all seem to be taking the same sort of dismissive line with respect of the member producers they are supposed to be representing.
What makes them seem to constantly display scant respect for their constituent producer members while simply ploughing-on with their snouts in the trough of public funding? It is beyond me, I am afraid.
Could it be that for some reason, the corruption in ‘high places’ that was commonly accepted in the ‘good ole days’ has returned or perhaps never really left us. Could it be that, the old corruption drivers of social standing, a better future job and political rewards, are once again to the fore? When you think about it, this could possibly sadly be the case.
The extraordinary rise in power of Retailers (Supermarkets), wholesalers (Processors) and celebrity of politicians has come at the same time as the phenomenal decrease in power of producers. Think about some of the decisions made by the aforementioned producer ‘membership’ executives and you might like to think again.
January 28, 2009 at 1:59 pm
· Filed under Uncategorized
President Obama’s first action as President was to curb the effect of ‘jobs for the boys’. He has limited lobbying by former government staffers and the employment of lobbyists into government roles.
A pertinent Australian example is the history of the 3 most recent and current NFF Chairmen (with information gleaned from the Aust. Beef Association). They are Donald McGauchie, the next Chairman, Peter Corish and the current Chairman, Mr David Crombie.
This example also highlights the effect corporate nepotism has had on levy-based funds supposedly set-up to assist farmers .
ABA Chairman, Brad Bellinger has said that farmers have shown their disillusion at the policies of NFF, by withdrawing their memberships in droves.
Mr Bellinger continued, “The NFF by being in Canberra has been staffed by people who climbed the Canberra bureaucracy ladder and forgot about the wellbeing of their members, as they tried to please those in power. They also quickly aligned themselves with the Business Council of Australia.
Their support for the introduction of the GST at the time astonished Senator Harradine, who said that it was the first occasion he had seen a body support the taxing of its members. The NFF received $15 million from the then Government in appreciation of their support.
The CEO’s of NFF have a tendency for promotion into top paying employment, or a path is laid for them to enter Parliament.
Donald McGauchie worked with the Government on the wharf dispute and was rewarded with a seat on the Reserve Bank Board and Chairmanship of Telstra. Telstra has subsequently treated the needs of farmers with scant disregard.
The next NFF Chairman, Peter Corish supported the Government in the move to the Free Trade Agreement with the USA, which has already greatly increased our trade deficit with the US.
After retirement, Mr Corish worked closely with a former supermarket CEO to raise $300M and float the public company (Prime Ag). Establishing such close business arrangements, it was not surprising then that the NFF was reluctant to be critical of the supermarkets against producers in the recent ACCC Grocery Inquiry.Mr Corish has reportedly now sold some of his own country to Prime Ag for an apparently substantial profit.
The current Chairman of NFF, Mr David Crombie, a former National Party preselection loser, has just recently organised 40% of funding and voting to go to corporate sponsors in order to gain more funding for the financially strapped NFF. Unfortunately, as Mr Bellinger has said, despite the NFF being originally established to represent farmers, like the MLA, it is now more closely aligned with corporate Australia (including the producers’ natural enemy, the supermarket processors – Ed). One has to wonder whether Mr. Crombie has a personal end-goal that is at odds with that of the NFF’s membership!
To further ememplify the dire situation that has resulted from the unholy alliance between the head of a farmer representative body and its members’ competitors, the farmers’ Levy Reserve Fund (under the management of the Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC)) is showing a substantial loss. (And as the loss is for the year ended 30th June 2008, therefore RMAC cannot use the current financial crisis as their excuse for the losses).
“The Levy Reserve Fund has dropped from $51 million in June 2007 to $44.5 million in June 2008” – ABA Chairman, Brad Bellinger.
Mr Bellinger said, “This money was originally collected as levies by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC), the predecessor of Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA). It was then placed in a fund by the then Primary Industries Minister John Anderson to be managed by RMAC.
The plan was to keep the Fund intact and fund the Peal Councils from the investment dividends.We now see despite substantial losses in the Fund, the Peak Councils keep asking for more; further decimating the capital.
Mr Bellinger continued, “Even while this loss was occurring, disbursements to the Peak Councils that were only ever supposed to come from fund dividends, increased by over $470,000 of an increase of over 20%.The Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) received an additional $187,134 bringing their total payments to $1,001,641 while the Cattle Council Australia (CCA) received an increase of $127,495, bringing their total payments to $682,421.
Some of this money also finds its way to the NFF as the Peak Councils also pay a membership fee to this organisation.With the NFF now contemplating selling its soul to the corporate world and deserting the Family Farmer who was the purpose for the levy’s origins, Mr. Bellinger said that, “this unaccountable back door flow of family farmer’s compulsory levies lacks transparency and is totally unacceptable“.
It’s hard to disagree with Mr. Bellinger and the ABA that, “ The Peak Councils have done little to improve the profitability of the Australian livestock producer and should not be funded by milking the (levy) Reserve Fund dry.The assets of levy payers must be protected”. (For more see research showing levy taxes are wasted here).
Is it worth wondering whether the whole levy system should be over-hauled and re-evaluated on a more equitable basis, (especially if levies aren’t really increasing production throughput nor increasing real farm prices)?
December 17, 2008 at 4:45 pm
· Filed under Uncategorized
$223 million has supposedly been paid by Australia’s producers and spent by MLA on LPA, Flockcare, Cattlecare, MSA + …… to gain a net industry benefit, over 30 years, of $1.1 billion. (See The Australian article here.)
$1.1 billion is about $0.91c per beast (cattle + sheep currently less than 40million head)! i.e. $1.1 billion ($1.1 thousand million) over 30 years is about $36 million each year. (I wonder how much a head that is when inflation etc is taken into account?)
However, what does this mean if the QA programs affecting meat quality aren’t being used?! (See Some figures on MSA non-usage here).
What benefits have Australia’s producers received from this cost? Let’s hope someone like CEO of MLA, David Palmer or Brad Bellinger, Chair at Australian Beef Association (ABA), can enlighten us.
David Palmer said the program has three quality systems for beef and sheep meat.
It began with beef in 1996, and aimed “to dramatically boost meat-eating quality”. Mr Palmer said it had evolved into a “world-leading quality assurance system from farm to consumer”.
Mr. Palmer states that QA systems have resulted in the consumer benefiting from better eating quality meat.
However, as only a bare proportion of producers use the meat quality QA programs (none use MSA in Victoria, apparently!), Australia’s farmers must be improving their meat without MLA’s programs – something Mr. Palmer didn’t clarify. Which means the programs can’t be accounting for the improved eating quality, which means producers are paying for QA programs that cost them via their MLA taxes (levy) but don’t achieve anything.
And let’s not forget that it has been proven time and again that producers aren’t receiving any additional income from this $223 million cost either. So, if this is the case, what is happening to the supposed magnificence of the $0.91c per beast?!
Wool buyers aren’t able to sell mulesed wool to fabric suppliers of large garment makers because consumers just won’t buy such product. This could be considered as a type of QA requirement on wool producers. In fact, it is probably the most potent direct QA requirement we have seen.
For more see this article or the previous Rural Australia mulesing article.
At first glance, this type of wool QA might seem to be relevant to the MSA and LPA QA contraints MLA has attempted to foist on meat producers for so many years. However, anti-mulesing is being actively promoted by consumers whereas meat QA is not being activately sought by consumers.
After many years of MLA promotion only about 4.8% of meat killed in 2007 was MSA.(If around 600,000 head are MSA and the total market kill is currently around 13million – The Weekly Times Nov 3, 2008) This leaves around 95% non-MSA. So, the vast majority of meat being consumed is non-MSA.
In fact, MLA recently stated (The Weekly Times Nov 3, 2008) that Australian meat exports are expected to hold-up because of the strong $US dollar. Where does MSA fit here? Probably in the same dark place as NLIS i.e. No country except Australia even talking about it now – despite MLA’s best efforts to promote it internationally (using producer funds, of course!)
Cattle Care and Flock Care failed and Victorians have led the pack in just jacking-up and saying “No” to MSA totally, apparently!
These figures show that in reality, QA is actually wasting valuable producer funds. If consumers want it, don’t worry, like mulesing, they’ll let us know.
CAAB is happily extending its MSA-backed (and presumably MLA sponsored) program and good luck to it. However, it is a niche branded product that doesn’t supply even a lion cub’s share of the market, let alone a lion’s share! If groups like CAAB require MSA then those producers wishing to participate are free to do so. We need to support enterprises like CAAB, however, it’s just not fair that those producers not wishing to do supply to CAAB should have to pay MLA to manage MSA systems for niche brands like CAAB.
LPA is the last QA vestige left for MLA (and its cohort processors) and it only surives because it (illegally?)forces producers to pay MLA to use an NVD form they had already been using from a different source for several years anyway.
So, is mulesing QA analagous to that for meat? I don’t think so!
What do you think?
Please leave your comment below?
Do you have an opinion on MLA telling the World that MSA and its QA ‘mates’ (Cattle care, Flock care, NLIS, LPA etc) are World best practice and the rest of the World needs to get on board?
Wouldn’t you think they should be focussed on Australia’s producers getting better prices and saving on costs rather than increasing processing and retail margins? (Surely they wouldn’t be more interested in selling licences to these programs World-wide than looking after their levy-paying producers?)
Here is a list of the weekly World beef price table from the Irish Farmers Journal (which some regard as ‘ one of the best in the World’) Sourced from John Carter’s article Nov 08 (see below).
In Euros the dressed weight prices were as follows UK 3.56
Italy 3.46
Netherlands 3.35
Germany 3.30
France 3.19
Uruguay 2.51
US 2.46
Brazil 1.83 Australia 1.57
Argentina on 1.32 (which is politically price-capped)
“Why, when we are paying the highest levies and using the most expensive QA and trace-back systems in the World are we getting the lowest true prices in the developed world?”- John Carter.
John also asks, “Is our ‘Best beef in the World’, really the worst in the developed world? Must we face the fact that we produce a third world product? Is it possible that we have been led by idiots who can’t see beyond their ivory tower?”
We are certainly being rorted by our supermarket duopoly — since 2000 when we moved from three to two supermarket chains, while the sale yard price of cattle has remained static, the combined retail/wholesale margin has exploded by 56%. Both producers and consumers are being ripped off. Producers now receive 28% of the consumer dollar and falling whilst the USA, UK and NZ receive between 45% and 49%. Click here for more on this story
This has been happening on MLA’s watch, so what is their response ? How are they directly saving producers $money and increasing our prices?
Given that MLA is supposedly working in your best interests as a producer, have the programs they have introduced (MSA, NLIS, Breed plan, Cattle Care, Flock Care, LPA etc) assisted you?
What do you think? Please send this blog to a friend and leave your comment below.
Sounds ironic, don’t you think? MLA has apparently claimed it is giving itself (its Board and senior executives), salary increases because NLIS is so successful.
Cop that!
A salary increase justified by a severe impost on producers (and agents) that is paid for by producers and benefits processors and retailers!
The MLA already receives a triple tax from producers: 1. The increased per head ‘levy’ tax 2. LPA tax to use the industry’s standard NVD form. 3. Federal Govt. co-funding from ‘Normal’ government farm taxes to boot!
(So, despite the fact that it is an independent corporation, MLA is actually funded primarily from taxes and would have very little revenue without taxes. Not much free market economics going-on there! ) However, it does seem a tad strange, don’t you think, that it can have the gaul to increase its salary based upon the spending of producer’s taxes. i.e. “We have spent your taxes so well, we deserve an increase in salary”.
One wonder whether they will then have the gaul to increase the taxes (levies) again in order to pay for the salary increases. Now that would be a truly vicious cycle.
If we are to take other large corporations as an example, we would expect to see peer group benchmarks and performance hurdles before salary increases would even be mentioned. As it stands, it seems there are no benchmarks on NLIS and all we have are: 1. PWC audit that showed ‘black’ holes in NLIS 2. Producer and agent displeasure with the NLIS 3. No international requirement for NLIS 4. No international implementation of NLIS
If this is the case, where is the case for MLA salary increases based upon the success of NLIS? In 2008 it should no longer be possible to say something is so without proof.
October 13, 2008 at 1:39 pm
· Filed under Uncategorized
Ever thought of your cattle or sheep as ‘Free Range”?
Here is an example of how not all farmers fit the perception of them as ‘red-neck’, ‘I need to bugger the environment to feed you city slickers’, cranks.
David Graham may be best known for his roles in Big Brother and Dancing with the stars, but his core livelihood is sheep meat farming.
He says that,
”Free range lamb is a natural product – unlike fed-lock lambs, which are kept in a small yard and fed continuously.
Mr Graham and his ‘paddock to plate’ group believe that Dorpers are a breed of lamb to watch: the kangaroo of the meat industry that Ross Garnaut is talking about in terms of lower emissions.
”Australia has to get smarter breeds on the land and this is one solution,” said general manager Peter Athey.
They also found that cutting out the middle man and selling direct worked best from a financial perspective. The auction markets gave their farmers only $26 a lamb while the supermarkets valued the same animal at $300. (Ed’s note: Perhaps this is more an indictment on the existing sales systems than anything!) Read More of ,The Age article here….
Do you think the main take-out from this article is that; 1. A new sales system is needed to give producers better value? 2. Farmers can make money and control their own destiny? 3. Farmers can afford to actively respect the environment and their stock? 4. Something else?
October 1, 2008 at 4:46 pm
· Filed under Uncategorized
What is it with Fairfax’s FairRural Press publishing a similar base of information across its stable of publications? i.e. Stock & Land, The Land, Queensland Country Life, North Queensland Register, S.A. Stock Journal etc all have a similar base of ‘news’ but forests of paper are used in duplicating it.
For example, the story, “Reserve to cut rates by 5pc to stave off depression”, appears the same in; QCL NQR The Land Stock Journal Stock & Land
And the reason for this duplication?
Fairfax can ‘customise’ a small amount of each publication for each state and then justify charging advertisers to go in multiple publications to ‘reach’ Australia’s farmers. Not a bad strategy but one would think it has questionable morality. Both to the advertisers and the readers who think they are getting a product that is special to their region. And this has been transferred to the Web when users should be able to go to one website instead of trawling around several.
Even if they don’t want to save their readers time and effort, Fairfax may soon be asked to save CO2 emissions and stop such wasteful duplication. (Perhaps if they help to reduce CO2 emissions then we won’t have coal mines trying to boot our farmers off valuable farm land for the World’s food!)
What do you think? Please leave your comment below
