Archive for December, 2008

MLA Spends Producers’ $223 Million To Gain 91c Per Beast !

December 17, 2008 at 4:45 pm · Filed under Livestock issues, MLA, NLIS, Rural business, election, farming, livestock, meat industry, rural australia, rural issues, tagging

$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?!

Related link – NZ Farmers Vote-Out Levies

What do you think?

Please leave your comments below

Comments (2)

Is The Mulesing Argument Similar To MLA’s Push With LPA, Cattle & Flock Care, MSA etc?

December 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm · Filed under Livestock issues, MLA, NLIS, farming, livestock, meat industry, rural australia, rural issues, supermarkets

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?

Comments (3)

Is Our ‘Best Beef In The World’, Really The Worst In The World?

December 2, 2008 at 11:42 am · Filed under Livestock issues, NLIS, farming, high prices, livestock, rural australia, rural issues, tagging

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.

Comments (4)