Scary Story From Quebec-Big Brother is TOO BIG

[Bruce L]

My Father cut out this article for me to read, seems like a nightmare that we hope never happens here for the rest of us producers.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/04/20140424-073102.html

[Michael Greer]

The article seems to imply that this system is universal in Canada, but your experience sounds different. How does it work in Leeds County? Are you part of a larger marketing organization, or are you on your own?
Here in New York we are relatively invisible, with the State only giving lip service during the sugaring season, and then forgetting us for the rest of the year. Perhaps that's a good thing. I'm a person who wants to see progress, expansion, and collective power, but not at the expense of getting Big Brother involved.

[MidMichMaple]

Compared to the way that Quebec is described, the maple industry in Michigan is like the Wild West.

[ToadHill]

I don't believe this article is a fair or accurate representation of how the federation works, but I will reserve further comment on the intricaces of the system and allow those with more detailed knowledge to chime in. In general, as I understand it, the Federation was formed by the producers themselves and they petitioned the government for regulations. It was done to stabalize wildly fluctuating pricing that was devistating the market. The fact that they have achieved this is what's allowing many of our fellow sugarmaker's to make a living off of sugaring due to stabalized and better prices.

[DrTimPerkins]

In general, as I understand it, the Federation was formed by the producers themselves and they petitioned the government for regulations.

Yes, that is correct. Some like it, some do not like it, however a majority voted for its formation, and (I believe) that the majority still support the Federation. This article is highly slanted in the "not" direction.

More background info can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Quebec_Maple_Syrup_Producers and http://www.siropderable.ca/home.aspx

[PerryW]

Yes, that is correct. Some like it, some do not like it, however a majority voted for its formation, and (I believe) that the majority still support the Federation. This article is highly slanted in the "not" direction.

More background info can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Quebec_Maple_Syrup_Producers and http://www.siropderable.ca/home.aspx

yup. tis the nature of the media with everything these days (especially internet media). Slant the story, leave out facts, cherry-pick data, all with the sole purpose of inciting emotional responses so that the story will go viral.

(This is just a general comment as I know nothing about the Canadien syrup issue.)

[MidMichMaple]

It would be more accurate to describe the piece that was shared as an editorial or opinion piece, rather than calling it an "article." The word "article" implies that it is unbiased reporting of the facts with no opinion included. I'm not saying that I have a strong opinion on the subject either way. Just pointing out that it is important to use the right terminology. :)

[ennismaple]

The Quebec Federation rules only apply to producers within their province. In Ontario and New Brunswick it's every producer for themselves when it comes to selling syrup. We use the Federation prices as a benchmark when buying and selling amongst ourselves but they have no direct influence on the way we do business.

[collinsmapleman2012]

I was in quebec a couple weeks ago touring operations, and it is really interesting in the differences between the ideals and goals of production. here we strive for as much as we can, but up there they want to do their quota and no more. the whole concept is pretty neat, but I'm glad I don't have it. it really varies producer to producer on the favorability. jut a different view of maple really.

[CBOYER]

This Guy, Eric Duhaime had a daytime Radio show in Quebec city (RadioX), and is full of ?&*?$/$. He makes an interview last week with Mr Simon Trépanier, General director of the FPAQ (Federation) and never let him answer to questions... Good to see that some of you understand well the way FPAQ works. Quotas are required to dont overflow the market since Qc produced mainly for exportation.

[maple flats]

It would be more accurate to describe the piece that was shared as an editorial or opinion piece, rather than calling it an "article." The word "article" implies that it is unbiased reporting of the facts with no opinion included. I'm not saying that I have a strong opinion on the subject either way. Just pointing out that it is important to use the right terminology. :)
Alas, there is very little written in the news that is really fact anymore. As such, by your definition (and likely an accurate one) there is only opinions in the news anymore, except maybe the obituaries.

[Jmsmithy]

Couldn't agree more Dave

[Scribner's Mountain Maple]

I may be missing the point, but I see this article as good information. Being a VT producer, I think that it is true to some degree. In the US we have no restrictions on growth. No limit on production levels, nobody telling us who we can or can't sell our syrup to. Actually quite the opposite. We have state and federal money granted to help every tom, dick and harry to buy the most fancy equipment available to quickly expand the maple production levels in the US. In VT and I suspect other states, the Governments have opened up state land to leasing for maple production. I doubt that's happening on the Queens lands. We may just surpass Canada in the next 5-10 years in production. That would be a little shocking, but if this 65% production number in the article is accurate, we are on our way! Heck I hope to double my production next year and I doubt I am alone.

The Federation makes this possible for us (in that they stabilize US bulk prices), and it is hurting them. So I have no complaints about them at the moment.

I recently spoke with a QC packer who is building a new facility in VT because of the challenges in dealing with the federation. So sure, there is two sides to this coin, I am glad to be on the winning side... Disclaimer, there is no doubt I'm talking a little out of my a** since I really don't know much, but why not stir the pot..

The losers are all those folks in QC that are just like us. Small producers that just want to build a thriving sugaring operation, but they can't because of big brother. I feel for them.

I wonder how much power the federation will have when they only produce 40% of world production. That will be an interesting day.

Ben

[ToadHill]

Ben,

While most of us have the same basic feelings as you, there is a lot more to this story. To begin with, this isn't "the government" telling producers what they can and can't do. The maple producers are doing this themselves. They petitioned the government to get the authority to regulate the industry. They did it to stop the cycle of boom and bust that tends to devestate industries like ours. In boom years there is a glut of syrup on the market and the price drops and new markets are created because syrup is cheap. Then along comes the bust years, the price spikes, and all of those new customers take a hike and it gets more and more difficult to attract them back in the future. They start looking for other investments. So the question is, do you want the short term gain that can be had at certain times in this cycle or do you want a more stable industry that both producers and customers can rely on. If you want to grow this industry then you need to look for stability. This allows producers to make long term investments with more confidence that they won't go bust.

Also, what I don't think is mentioned in this story is that direct sales to the consumer is unregulated and unaffected. Producers can make and sell as much as they want to the consumer. It is only the bulk market that is being regulated and that is being controlled by the Federation which are the producers themselves.

Lastly, it is my understanding that the Canadian government does lease out Crown lands to producers.

If I have any of this wrong I would appreciate corrections.

Randy

[DrTimPerkins]

Actually quite the opposite. We have state and federal money granted to help every tom, dick and harry to buy the most fancy equipment available to quickly expand the maple production levels in the US.

Exactly where is this free government money you are talking about? The only money I know of is for increasing energy efficiency, but it is not to be used for expansion. The Acer Access and Development Program that recently passed as part of the Farm Bill authorized grants to increase production (among a list of things), but didn't actually appropriate any money for the program.


In VT and I suspect other states, the Governments have opened up state land to leasing for maple production.

A few years ago the State of Vermont opened up a few very limited parcels of state land for lease (after years of being heavily lobbied to allow it). Overall it is a tiny fraction of the state lands that were made available. In general, tapping on state land has not been very highly encouraged, and is a miniscule fraction of the total taps in VT.


We may just surpass Canada in the next 5-10 years in production.

Extraordinarily unlikely. While there has been quite good growth in VT and in the U.S. in the past 5-10 yrs, the U.S. industry would have to quintuple (grow 500%) to do that. I can't see that happening, especially that fast. It took about 10 yrs to double the number of taps in Vermont, and growth elsewhere in the U.S. is not nearly as fast. Even with all the growth in the U.S. recently, U.S. syrup production as a percentage of total production has not risen, and has actually fallen from what it was in the early-1990s before the big growth boom (see attached graph).


The losers are all those folks in QC that are just like us. Small producers that just want to build a thriving sugaring operation, but they can't because of big brother. I feel for them.

Perhaps, but who were the losers when QC grew it's production over several decades through substantial Governmental subsidies (and helped by a weak Canadian $) and cheap leases on crown land which resulted in pathetic syrup prices in the U.S. You only have to look at what happened to the U.S. industry from the 1950s to the 1990s to find the answer to that one.

Don't get me wrong....I think the Federation has done, and is still doing some really good things in terms of maple syrup market stabilization, however there are some downsides for U.S. maple producers as well. The main one being the easy availability of QC syrup to U.S. markets.

The one variable that many people do not factor in (much) is the currency exchange. The strengthening of the Canadian $ over the past several years has helped U.S. producers to gain significant profits making maple syrup, and that is what fueled a good deal of the growth in the U.S. Where it will go in the future is anyone's guess.

9705

[Scribner's Mountain Maple]

Randy,

Thanks for the education. I actually didn't know most of that. So thanks.

Still though, I know they aren't allowing growth in their industry. I am not sure why really? You can say to control production, why?

More maple syrup in my opinion will bring the price down and the demand should increase accordingly. Rest assured, if the consumer could get it for $30 a gallon, then the demand would skyrocket on the national and international market. It would be a more viable source of everyday sugar and compete for space in peoples pantries. I think that is where we are headed. More production, lower price, higher demand/consumption. Especially if you consider the possible increase on the supply if Maple coppice Crop Farming takes off.

It just seems like those farmers in the Federation are shooting themselves in the foot and are being left behind by the staggering growth in the US Maple industry. It is happening so fast in the US that I feel that people need to grow now or be left behind.

I think while Maple farmers enjoy 30/gal for bulk, they could survive and thrive with 20-25 and a little more production.

Why don't US producers create a Federation and "Reserve" to balance and regulate price fluctuations. Also you stressed the creation of the Federation to control the variable in farming. Isn't that what Crop insurance is for?

Thanks.

Ben

[Scribner's Mountain Maple]

Thanks Dr Tim.

Also a good education. It made me think of a good point you make. About the easy access of Canadian Syrup to the US market.

The question is this, if we are all going to be using the same grading system from now on, when will they have to adjust to US production standards? How can QC syrup producers put the same label as a US producer and say it is the same thing. Not that I have seen for myself, but I think it is known thing that Alcohol among other chemicals are standard in QC operations. right?

Maybe off topic, but With the standardization of labeling, the world will think all syrup is created equal. Why didn't the US Department of Ag, or whoever it was that negotiated labeling standardization include production methods.

Thanks,
Ben

[ennismaple]

Ben,

Isopropyl Alcohol is only approved to clean tubing. It's no different than our friends south of the border (and up here too) who use a bleach and water mixture to wash their lines - except the critters don't chew the lines to get at the residue.

What other chemicals are you inferring that QC producers use that American producers don't? Do you think US standards are higher than Cdn standards?

IMO - larger, modern operations (like you find in QC) tend to have better food safety practices than smaller operations. The big guys have all welded stainless steel equipment while many small operations (not all but some) still use galvanized pans, tanks and buckets and brass valves.

[Scribner's Mountain Maple]

I don't know of any other Chemicals used in QC production. I'm just trying to get you guys up north fired up. My family, on Grandma's side only, are old Frenchies from way back. Now my family are Americans, which is better of course. Vermonter's even, and we all know VT is the best place in America. Anyway, I think VT should start a Federation. Viva ala Federation..

[handtapper]

I don't know a lot about it but i dont like it. There is nothing better than the free market. It provides regulation from theconsumer. When the big boys form regulations someone always wins which means someone has to lose

[ennismaple]

Lastly, it is my understanding that the Canadian government does lease out Crown lands to producers.

Maybe in Quebec but in Ontario it is very difficult to get a lease on Crown Land. Our provincial association has been lobbying to make it easier to tap trees on public land but the red tape often makes it prohibitive.

[ToadHill]

Once again I make the mistake of lumping everyone north of the border together without realizing the differences between provinces. My apologies.