Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Livestock Traceability in Canada - Is it do-able?

Do you think the Federal Provincial Territorial Ministers (Canada) commitment at the FPT meeting this summer of having a full traceability system for Livestock in place by 2011 is achievable?

Views: 654

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rocky on October 6, 2009 at 1:07am
I think it can be - but the question I always wonder is who is paying for it? I'm not going to argue with the concept - I think it's good -- I just think it's really expensive that doesn't equal real results. I mean - shouldn't beef guys be making money with all the improved traceability and market access they've gotten? Is having a system for pigs going to help them make money? I don't think so.
Permalink Reply by Joe Dales on October 6, 2009 at 10:00am
Hi Sara:

I agree with some of the points Rocky makes.
The technology is certainly available to implement a system.

The issue is the cost/benefits - governments can mandate a system like in beef but can a system create the added value from a marketing price perspective to warrant the extra costs.

Are we generating a premium for Canadian Beef because of traceability over non traced beef on the world market or in any market.

Identity Preserved soybeans do generate a premium for the producer so they can decide to do the extra work for the extra revenue...so there are market driven models that do work.

Thanks,

Joe
Permalink Reply by pigsrgr8 on October 8, 2009 at 5:39am
Pretty low priority on hog farms these days.
Permalink Reply by Steve Twynstra on October 8, 2009 at 2:21pm
Not a chance for the non-SM sector....I give the SM sector a 95% chance of pulling it off. There will be a traceability scheme....a la gun control, eHealth, etc., but as far as being real-time current this will only be a dream. Without a clear and bankable economic benefit for participants it will be in perpetual disarray. Throw in the myriad of 'hobby' livestock practioners and I shudder at the resources about to be wasted. Not to say that it isn't a necessary idea, but the approach has been all wrong. Unlike IP crop production where the marketplace expects and rewards traceability, I just don't see the same pressure along the generic export livestock food chain beyond what is already existing. As for the idea of traceabilty to combat disease outbreaks...I see too many feathers flying overhead or wildlife around in its natural state to take much consolation. Unlike certain equipment dealers that record every size and make of every machine in their market area for competitve reasons, I just don't see the same degree of impetus driving this agenda by the processors.

However, if livestock processors or exporters are driving this agenda then WHY is public money and government so involved? Not content to lobby for the demise of local abattoirs thru overbearing food safety regs, or to rest after successfully passing the murder of 22 citizens thru tainted meat onto government, they have now successfully convinced decision makers to ante up public dollars to rebuild and enhance their marketing efforts. Will National Grocers be more content and pay a premium to stock Ontario livestock products over foreign product? I think our dollar approaching par will have more say. Now please tell me where I am wrong and what I am missing?
Permalink Reply by Steve Twynstra on October 8, 2009 at 2:22pm
..just another way for decision makers to divert their attention from the REAL issues facing Canadian agriculture!!
Permalink Reply by Bristow on January 9, 2010 at 8:11pm
It is a joke and puts extra cost on the product, if the meat is not edible all those meat inspectors are not doing their job are they. Plus the retard who came up with this whole concept should be run out of town as carpet bagger, and the money should be spent on something more practical. The consumer doesn't care and will only buy the cheap imported meat. An other example of miss management, and pricing your local product out of the market. An if you are a farm and don't see what it is, then more fool you. Doomsday book rember that passed history.

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

Low commodity prices and high input costs a double whammy for Manitoba farmers

Manitoba farmers are facing a perfect storm of low grain prices and soaring fertilizer costs that are threatening profitability for both the current harvest and next year’s crop. Current harvest delivery prices have fallen to $7 per bushel for hard red spring wheat, $13.25 for canola, $11 for soybeans and $4 for oats, representing harvest pricing typically seed at the lows of a pricing cycle. On the cost side, fertilizer costs have climbed significantly from the numbers used in Manitoba Ag’s 2025 crop cost of production guide, which was compiled last November.  Urea has jumped to $850-900 per metric tonne, about 30 per cent higher than the $690 per tonne used in those calculations. Data from Manitoba Ag show a surge in crop production costs in 2022.  Those have stayed elevated and, when combined with current grain prices, the cost pressure is particularly acute.

US wheat finds new markets in Asia

Flour millers in Asia have ramped up imports of U.S. wheat in recent weeks, driven by competitive prices from American suppliers and delays in shipments from the Black Sea. Indonesian importers have finalized deals for around 500,000 tons, while buyers in Bangladesh secured about 250,000 tons and millers in Sri Lanka acquired around 100,000 tons. Millers are taking both U.S. soft white wheat and hard red winter wheat varieties. Apparently, there were some weather issues which delayed cargoes from the Black Sea region, and U.S. prices have been pretty competitive. This is additional demand for U.S. wheat in Asia, complementing purchases by traditional buyers such as Thailand, the Philippines and Taiwan.

Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Agriculture (FPT) Meetings Highlight Farmer Concerns

Industry leaders and government officials kicked off the FPT meetings at a Manitoba farm. Farmers and representatives from the Canola Council of Canada (CCC), CCGA, and provincial commissions shared their concerns directly with Minister MacDonald and Parliamentary Secretary Kody Blois. A key message was clear: farmers cannot borrow their way through these trade disputes, they were not of their making. Farmers are feeling the damage directly in their pockets. With canola selling at a discount between $60-$100/tonne...on an average 20MMT crop, that translates to estimated losses of $1.2–2.0 billion from lost exports to China. Federal Announcements: Some Support, but Gaps Remain The federal government announced $370 million in biofuel funding and additional trade diversification support. While these measures are a step in the right direction, they fall short of addressing the direct impact on canola farmers and exporters in lost bookings. Concerns remain over the lack of timelines for re

The Last Word (For Now) on Rest Stops During Long-Distance Transport

When the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) began to muse about requiring that cattle be unloaded and provided with a rest stop after 36 hours of transportation, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Canada’s beef industry funded a series of research projects led by Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein’s team at AAFC’s Lethbridge Research Station to determine whether a rest stop would benefit weaned calves. The research began before the regulations were revised, but the regulations were revised before the research could be completed. Three consecutive research trials conducted in 2018, 2019 and 2020 found that providing a rest stop during long haul transportation offered no consistent, measurable benefits for animal welfare. A companion project led by Trevor Alexander at AAFC Lethbridge looked at bacterial populations in the respiratory tract of those same calves. In September 2023, this column described how microbiological testing from the 2018 transportation trial found that rested

Federal Plastics Registry has new compliance requirement

The federal government has created new reporting requirements under its new Federal Plastics Registry. The registry is being phased in over a few years, however phase 1 requires Canadian brand owners to report on plastic packaging placed on the market by September 29, 2025, for the 2024 calendar year.

© 2025   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service