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.
Rod Dunbar said
My opinion of MLA is that they are just a bunch of Public Officials on hefty renumeration packages looking for more ways to spend even more tax funds.
Your basic premise that in some way the MLA is there to “serve” or generally “look after” the levy payers is a bit of a laugh. The only ones being “looked after” are RMAC and we “serve” them not the other way around.
I am very conversant with the MOU and the structure generally and that is not MLA‘s mission or goal to “serve” or generally “look after” the levy payers; they are the “industry” and they manage the “producers” to the satisfaction of the Minister in accordance with the MISP which is a Statutory Instrument, and they use Tax funds to do it. The “industry” by definition in the Act is the Commonwealth and the Peak Industry Councils who are Civil Servants with a “prescribed” Statutory Interest over livestock throughout Australia; it does not include private individuals or entities.
The fact that the structure is and always was deficient in looking after the families on the land was clearly pointed out by the University of Melbourne in 1997, in a study commissioned by the Red Meat Industry before it was incorporated, when the proposed structure, as it was then, was first disclosed.
A key element the University of Melbourne study pointed out that the proposal would destroy the family farm concept, replacing that with large corporate units involving vertical integration. I think their predictions were correct.
There are very good reasons why the price of Australian cattle are so low on world comparisons, they are mainly money related both to the pockets of Coles and Woolworths and also to the processors. Don’t forget the supermarkets are represented on RMAC by AMIC; the so called duopoly referred to is actually included within the Red Meat Industry Structure; a clear conflict of interest.
I would like to comment on two of the countries quoted.
Firstly, the Netherlands. I have friends in Holland and the fact is that the EEC subsidy is a reciprocal and exact amount as that which the farmer received for his animal when sold. Simply the farmer just fills in an application form and attaches the account sales and gets a cheque in the mail for the same amount. I do not know if that is factored in your figures.
Secondly, Argentina. Whilst it is a fact the exports are controlled by the Government the cattle owners are in a far better financial position than us. When I was there in February diesel was selling at the bowser for AU$0.65 per litre; labour costs are such that what we have to pay in a week here would pay the average farm worker there more than 2 months salary, pro rata. You can actually buy cattle land and actually pay it off, using the income derived from that land’s production, something that has long since gone here. Feedlots that supply the domestic market are subsidised at 50% of feed costs. Tax is in the favour of the farmer…etc…etc. The emphasis is on feeding the people and I can tell you farms are profitable there, and the cost of living is cheap.
The killer here on top of the extremely low gross income received by the cattle owner is the extreme cost of production and getting higher every day due to MLA and its regulations.
Mr Carter asks… “Is our ‘Best beef in the World’, really the worst in the developed world?
Well in comparison the Argentina, and I understand the USA our beef is 3rd grade, and we may have to face up to that fact. That’s even more reason to get rid of MLA; you don’t need to spend $200 million annually to sell grinding meat.
Could we see some discussion on how this is to be defeated…or is it just hot air and talk as usual?????
Ty Redofmla said
Good comments, Rod.
Re: “Could we see some discussion on how this is to be defeated…or is it just hot air and talk as usual?????”
I see a couple of options here to wrest power from MLA.
1. Organise a concerted effort between producers and agents where producers write a letter instructing their agent to not deduct the levy from their sales accounts.
2. Organise a concerted effort between producers and agents where producers instruct their agents to not provide MLA LPA NVD’s.
(Of course, timing here would be particularly good at a time(s) of low supply).
There you go.
Your thoughts, Rod?
Anyone else have an opinion?
(And while we appreciate all opinions, can we keep it to 1-200 words?
Rod Dunbar said
Sorry Ty I have been busy and missed your comment; I do agree with your suggestions they are all winners, also we should implement these in addition;
1. Resign from MLA
2. Resign from your State farming Association if it is aligned with CCA, and form one that is not,
3. Close your NLIS account, and have a third party (i e your agent) do your transfers
4. If you are forced by your meatworks to supply a LPA NVD under threat of bankruptcy;
(a) Document the threats (like I did) and write letters back to them setting out their threats that they made so you have a record for evidence,
(b) On the NVD directly under your signature write “I sign under DURESS” and then Sign it again. The document is then null and void, but the processors take it anyhow.
If the cattle owners were strong enough we all should strike for 3 months and starve them out; blockade the meatworks and the saleyards with barricades; demand the dismantling of MLA and the withdrawal of the Tax funding for Peak Councils, and the return of the free market for livestock.
And we should start tomorrow….
The Great Meat Rip-off Much More Than High Fuel Costs « Rural Australia said
[...] meat is purchased at the lowest cost in the developed World and sold at the highest! Click for the facts While it’s all very well for MLA to advertise to increase consumption, I would prefer they [...]