Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund · John Farrow, PAg, Kamloops, BC Peter Fofonoff, PAg, Williams Lake, BC Jim Tingle, PAg, Prince George, BC (Secretary and CIDC Consultant) The

BeefCattle

Industry

Development FundReview and Evaluation

2002 – 2006

�

Beef Cattle Industry Development FundEvaluation 2002-2006

�

Evaluation of Completed BCIDF ProjectsApril �00� to July �006

Table of Contents Page

1. Introduction and Review Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

�. The BCID Fund �.1 Overall Goal and Objectives of the BCID Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 �.� Procedures used by CIDC to manage BCIDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

�. �00� Review and Priority Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

�.1 Animal Care �.� Association Development �.� Environmental Issues �.4 Land Issues �.5 Market Expansion �.6 Production Improvement Practices �.7 Quality Standards �.8 Provincial Cattle Association Projects

4. Evaluation Methodology 4.1 Evaluation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.� Organization of Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.� Project Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4 Ratings of Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.5 Comment On Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5. Evaluation by Individual Category 5.1 Animal Care Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1.1 Evaluation Tables 5.1.� Assessment 5.1.� Resources, Reach and Results

5.� Association Development Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1� 5.�.1 Evaluation Tables 5.�.� Assessment 5.�.� Resources, Reach and Results

5.� Environmental Issue Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.�.1 Evaluation Tables 5.�.� Assessment 5.�.� Resources, Reach and Results

� �


5.4 Land Issue Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.4.1 Evaluation Tables 5.4.� Assessment 5.4.� Resources, Reach and Results

5.5 Market Expansion Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.5.1 Evaluation Tables 5.5.� Assessment 5.5.� Resources, Reach and Results

5.6 Production Improvement Practice Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �0 5.6.1 Evaluation Tables 5.6.� Assessment 5.6.� Resources, Reach and Results

5.7 Quality Standards Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �� 5.7.1 Evaluation Table 5.7.� Assessment 5.7.� Resources, Reach and Results

5.8 Provincial Cattle Association Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �� 5.8.1 Evaluation Tables 5.8.� Assessment 5.8.� Resources, Reach and Results

6 Review 6.1 Project Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �5 6.� Funding Sources for Projects Under Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �6 6.� Projects Linkages to Original Trust Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �7 6.4 Implementation of Previous Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �8 6.5 Council Remuneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �9

7 Review Summary Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �9

8 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �0

Appendix One – Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ��

4


5

1. Introduction The Cattle Industry Development Council (CIDC) is mandated by the Province of BC to conduct a review of the Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund (BCIDF) every four years. CIDC asked the four consultants below to serve as the 2006 Evaluation Team to conduct the 2002-2006 review. The 2006 Evaluation Team: Walter Goerzen, PAg, Chilliwack, BC John Farrow, PAg, Kamloops, BC Peter Fofonoff, PAg, Williams Lake, BC Jim Tingle, PAg, Prince George, BC (Secretary and CIDC Consultant)

The Team is pleased to present a review of all completed projects within the April 2002 to June 2006 timeline including a focus on selected projects, sources of funding and its impact on the beef industry.

Additional challenges requested of the team were to review: 1 The trust fund balance for long term availability 2 Council actions on previous recommendations 3 Adherences to trust fund requirements 4 Council operations and remuneration

The CIDC is made up of eight members elected by four beef sector organizations: BC Cattlemen’s Association (4) Linda Allison (Chair) Laura Grafton Grant Huffman Harold Starr BC Association of Cattle Feeders (1) Bill Freding BC Breeders and Feeders Association (1) Connie Patterson BC Milk Producers Association (2) David Janssens (Vice-Chair) Clarence DeBoer Hallie MacDonald of BCCA serves as Secretary/Treasurer Tony Kluge is the ex-officio representative from MAL MAL’s provincial beef specialist usually attends as a guest

Photo from BCCA Collection

4 5


�. The Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund

The Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund (BCIDF) is financed out of resources generated by a 9.347 million dollar Trust Fund established by the Province in 1994. It is the understanding of the producers that these funds are from the remnants of provincial and producer National Tripartite Stabilization and Farm Income Assurance program funds. The Trust Fund is available to finance BCIDF projects for a period of 20 years until 2014. Only non-government funds that are contributed towards projects that fit the priorities for the BCIDF will trigger matching funds from the Trust. A pool of previously triggered funds is available to fund non-triggerable expenses.

�.1 Overall Goals and Objectives as Stated in the Trust Agreement:

The overall goal for the BCIDF is to:- Improve the profitability, viability and sustainability of the beef cattle industry in British Columbia- Improve the BC beef cattle industry’s responsiveness to changing needs in the marketplace and the

environment- Provide efficient quality services to the beef cattle industry- Foster co-operation within the BC beef cattle industry to achieve the purpose of the BCID Fund- Address any other important matters affecting the beef cattle industry as they relate to the purpose of

the fund.

�.� Procedures Used by CIDC to Manage BCIDF

The CIDC, made up of members elected from provincial cattle associations, meets four times per year, and sometimes by conference call, to consider applications for BCID funding and to conduct any business relating to the fund. Applications are received, usually at the end of each quarter and receive a time and date stamp and are forwarded to the CIDC consultant. He prepares an assessment and analysis report that determines their fit to the objectives and priorities of the fund. The consultant is available to assist applicants either pre or post submission to ensure fit to expected objectives and budgeting. Members of Council decide whether to approve, defer or reject the application at quarterly meetings by reviewing the assessment reports and applications. A letter of Council’s decision informs the applicant, and if the application has been approved, a funding agreement is prepared and sent to the applicant for signing. The Chair of Council then signs the contract and the first payment is sent to the recipient. The recipient must send in progress reports and financial statements showing how the BCID funds are being used and the plans for the next stage of the project. Approval must be obtained from CIDC for variance in project objectives, timelines or budget variation greater than ten percent. A holdback of fifteen percent on the final payment is made until Council receives a final report on the project. The consultant completes a review of the final report, which is reviewed and accepted by Council before the final disbursement is forwarded.

6


7

�. Priority Activities for the Period Under Review

At a workshop held in January 2002, cattle industry association representatives and members of the CIDC developed the following alphabetical list of priorities for the use of the BCIDF: �.1 Animal Care - producer education - communications and awareness - animal welfare standards - research into animal welfare that is supportive of best practices - SPCA–like programs

�.� Association Development - building and maintaining membership - distribution and co-ordination of information between associations - strategic and longer range planning - member skill development - outside resources and support - industry surveys

�.� Environmental Issues - water quality - riparian management practices - manure spreading, nutrient loading - peer education and recognition - air quality impact - public education about agriculture and the environment - impact of environmental regulations

�.4 Land Issues - urban and rural conflict, and urban encroachment - aboriginal issues and treaty rights - compensation to producers for land loss - projects related to continued use of land - responsibility for fencing - licensing of wells - research related to other jurisdictions

�.5 Market Expansion - education for newer products - ethnic market development - marketing strategies for expansion - local area and association promotion - new product development - beef breeds and beef genetic promotion

6 7


�.6 Production Improvement Practices - herd health knowledge (pest management & lower dependence on antibiotics) - disease management - improving awareness of industry standards - transfer of knowledge on new production standards - research on feeding cattle less expensively - forage management - nutrient and trace mineral requirements

�.7 Quality Standards - E-coli 157 research - HAACP and needle less practices - quality assurance re: animal by-products - systems to track vaccination - standardized husbandry practices - consumer communication

�.8 Provincial Cattle Association Projects For the purpose of this review, the Evaluation Team added an eighth activity for provincial cattle association projects. A total of twenty-one (21) projects have been completed from the four provincial cattle associations plus the former Mainland Dairymen’s Association prior to the BC Milk Producers Association reorganization.

Photo by Liz Twan

8


9

4. Evaluation Methodology 4.1 Evaluation Model

The evaluation model used in this report is the same model used in the BCIDF “ Report on Projects 1995-1998” and “Evaluation 1995-2002”, and is taken from the concepts included in the Montague model entitled, “ The Three R’s of Performance”. This study attempts to identify and rate the RESOURCES used to REACH beef producers and other industry participants in order to achieve the RESULTS envisioned from the objectives of the BCID Fund.

RESOURCES were rated by assessing the value of the BCID Fund dollars and in-kind contribution to finance projects. This assessment looked at the overall contribution of the projects to the goals and objectives of the BCID Fund and at the success in leveraging financing from other resources.

REACH refers to the range of groups or individuals receiving project outputs such as beef producers, farm organizations, professional agrologists, other professionals, federal and provincial staff, agribusiness and the general public. The first aspect is to identify the project output (e.g. a reference manual) that was developed for a certain audience. The second is to identify which groups are actually receiving these outputs. The third is to get feedback from this audience on the quality of this output and the importance to them, and how it might be improved. The use of evaluation sheets at educational events, and adding a comment sheet to the reference materials supplied, would be examples of this feedback.

RESULTS refer to the impact of the results of the projects supported by the Fund on all these clients identified in the reach above, or to the beef industry as a whole. Included in the assessment of results was (1) short-term results such as awareness, understanding, knowledge, etc. which could lead to a decision to adopt or change. In other words the value of the output created; and (2) long term results, which would include assessing the value of this output created to improve incomes, sales, environmental benefits, safety or services delivered. The method of delivery of information could also encourage long-term results.

4.� Organization of Files The Evaluation Team met at the BCCA office on Sept 12, 2006 to review the assignment and to decide on a course of action. The CIDC consultant then reviewed all completed projects and assigned them to best fit one of the eight priority categories. The evaluation team met again in Kamloops in mid-November to review each final report together with financial records and to score each project according to the following scoring criteria.

8 9


4.� Project Scoring Each category was assessed by giving it a score of between 1 and 10 to each of the following questions:- Overall value of this category to improve the viability, sustainability and profitability of the beef industry- Ability to increase productivity/profitability of individual producers- Ability to increase the knowledge and capacity of producers over the long term- Value of funds spent- Financial contributions from other sources; especially non-government- Ability to increase environmental sustainability practices- Ability to increase marketing skills- Ability to increase public awareness and acceptance of the beef industry- Contribution to the production of safe high quality product- Contribution to the overall health and welfare of beef animals

The provincial cattle association category was also provided a score for:- Contribution to the capacity and sustainability of industry associations

Projects were given the following values on the score sheet:Score of 1 to 3 = no value to beef industryScore of 4 to 5 = very little valueScore of 6 = some valueScore of 7 to 8 = good valueScore of 9 = very good valueScore of 10 = excellent value

If a question did not apply to a project, a “dash” was inserted in the space. An average was calculated for each question if two or more projects had values for that question.

Jr Hereford Bonanza, Salmon Arm 2002, All Hereford Bonanza photos by D Richardson

10


11

4.4 Ratings of Categories The categories are the seven priority activities identified in the 2002 review plus the provincial cattle association projects.

4.5 Comments on the Category Ratings The three highest scoring categories were: Provincial Cattle Association Projects at 8.8, Production Improvement Practices at 8.7, and Market Expansion at 8.7. The provincial cattle association projects scored well for contribution to the capacity and sustainability of member associations, for the ability to increase environmental sustainability practices and for the overall value to the beef industry. Both Production Improvement Practices and Market Expansion projects scored high for financial contributions from other sources and value for funds spent as well as overall value to the beef industry. Market Expansion projects also scored high for their contribution to the production of a safe, high quality product. As a group, research projects were generally low scoring, often due to limited immediate application and limited financial contribution from non-government sources. The best categories for achieving a high level of non-government cash contribution were:Market Expansion, which scored 9.4 and Association Development, which scored 9.0. The benefit of being able to utilize CIDC check-off dollars to trigger BCIDF Trust funds is essential to the sustainability of provincial cattle associations. The CIDC requires some certainty that the Trust Agreement will continue past 2014. A breakdown of funding for the projects under review is presented in each category table.

Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund

Evaluation 2002-2006

page 9

4.5 Comments on the Category Ratings

The three highest scoring categories were: Provincial Cattle Association Projects at 8.8, Production

Improvement Practices at 8.7, and Market Expansion at 8.7

The provincial cattle association projects scored well for contribution to the capacity and sustainability of

member associations, for the ability to increase environmental sustainability practices and for the overall value to

the beef industry.

Both Production Improvement Practices and Market Expansion projects scored high for financial contributions

from other sources and value for funds spent as well as overall value to the beef industry. Market Expansion

projects also scored high for their contribution to the production of

a safe, high quality product.

As a group, research projects were generally low scoring, often due to limited immediate application and

limited financial contribution from non-government sources.

The best categories for achieving a high level of non-government cash contribution were:

Market Expansion, which scored 9.4 and Association Development, which scored 9.0.

The benefit of being able to utilize CIDC check-off dollars to trigger BCIDF Trust funds is

essential to the sustainability of provincial cattle associations. The CIDC requires some certainty that the

Trust Agreement will continue past 2014.

A breakdown of funding for the projects under review is presented in each category table.

5 Evaluation by Individual Category

5.1 Animal Care Projects5.1.1 Evaluation Tables

# Title Applicant Cost BCIDF Score

99 Development of the most

efficient testing and

control for Johne’s

disease for BC

Dr. John Robinson,

Animal Health Centre

152 500 30 500 6.3

142 Development of a

delivery vehicle for

Dr. George Mutwhirl,

VIDO

48 928 48 928 8.0

Animal Assoc Env Land Market Produc Qual Prov.Care Dev. Issues Issues Expan Imp Std Cattle

Score AssocOverall value to improve viability,sustainability etc of beef industry

6.8 8.2 8.0 8.4 8.8 8.9 6.0 9.0

Ability to increase productivity/profitabilityof individual producer

7.0 8.3 7.7 7.8 8.4 8.6 - 8.5

Ability to increase knowledge and capacityof producers over the long term

6.8 8.5 7.8 7.5 7.9 8.7 - 8.6

Value for funds spent 7.0 9.0 9.1 7.7 9.1 9.0 6.0 8.7Financial contributions from other sources 7.0 9.0 8.8 7.3 9.4 8.8 6.0 7.8Ability to increase environmentalsustainability practices

- 8.7 8.8 8.1 - 8.5 - 9.5

Ability to increase marketing skills - 8.0 - - 8.4 8.7 6.0 8.1Ability to increase public awareness andacceptance of the beef industry

7.0 8.7 8.9 8.1 8.9 8.7 - 8.9

Contribution to the production of safe highquality product

7.2 - - - 9.0 - 7.0 8.8

Contribution to the overall health andwelfare of the beef animal

8.6 8.5 8.3 - - - - 8.6

Contribution to the sustainability ofProvincial associations

- - - - - - - 9.9

Overall Score for this Category 7.2 8.6 8.3 7.8 8.7 8.7 6.2 8.8

10 11


5 Evaluation by Individual Category5.1 Animal Care Projects5.1.1 Evaluation Tables

5.1.� Assessment of Animal Care Category These projects relate to animal health and welfare and the highest scoring project (#221) was the Emergency Response Course conducted by OII. As a group, the research projects conducted at UBC, the Animal Health Centre and VIDO scored low because of the limited short –term practicality and limited non-government resources.

5.1.� Resources $281 604 cash and in-kind was allocated to these five projects of which $116 615 or 41.4% was contributed by BCIDF. Reach All of these projects are dealing with issues that are of some concern to all cattle producers in the province. While it will be some time before the current VIDO project is useful to beef producers, past VIDO projects are becoming useful for both animal and human welfare.


page 3

5 Evaluation by Individual Category5.1 Animal Care Projects5.1.1 Evaluation Tables

# Title Applicant Cost BCIDF Score99 Development of the most

efficient testing andcontrol for Johne’sdisease for BC

Dr. John Robinson,Animal Health Centre

152 500 30 500 6.3

142 Development of adelivery vehicle foreffective oral vaccinationof calves

Dr. George Mutwhirl,VIDO

48 928 48 928 8.0

188 Animal Health Project B.C. Association ofCattle Feeders

10 000 4 500 6.7

195 Farm measurement ofbeef cattle temperament

Dr. Marina vonKeyserlingk, UBC

63 676 29 437 6.6

221 Emergency ResponseCourse

Ownership IdentificationInc (OII)

6 500 3 250 8.2

TOTALS 281 604 116 615 7.2

Evaluation of Animal Care Category ScoreOverall value to improve viability, sustainability etc of beef industry 6.8Ability to increase productivity/profitability of individual producer 7.0Ability to increase knowledge and capacity of producers over the long term 6.8Value for funds spent 7.0Financial contributions from other sources 7.0Ability to increase environmental sustainability practices -Ability to increase marketing skills -Ability to increase public awareness and acceptance of the beef industry 7.0Contribution to the production of safe high quality product 7.2Contribution to the overall health and welfare of the beef animal 8.6Overall Score for this Category 7.2

5.1.2 Assessment of Animal Care CategoryThese projects relate to animal health and welfare and the highest scoring project

(#221) was the Emergency Response Course conducted by OII. As a group, the researchprojects conducted at UBC, the Animal Health Centre and VIDO scored low because of thelimited short –term practicality and limited non-government resources.

5.1.3 Resources$281 604 cash and in-kind was allocated to these five projects of which $116 615 or41.4% was contributed by BCIDF.

ReachAll of these projects are dealing with issues that are of some concern to all cattle

producers in the province. While it will be some time before the current VIDO project isuseful to beef producers, past VIDO projects are becoming useful for both animal andhuman welfare. Results

Good results have been achieved from the projects on testing for Johne’s Disease

1�


1�

Results Good results have been achieved from the projects on testing for Johne’s Disease for BC, the oral vaccination for calves, and for the Emergency Response Course. The latter project will assist all brand inspectors to deal with emergency animal transport and vehicle accidents involving livestock. The applicants generally met the objectives of the projects and scored highest for their contribution to the overall health and welfare of the beef animal. These projects need to be measured in a longer time frame than four years. These projects also raise the issue of the need to reduce matching funding levels below 50% to trigger from the Trust for basic research.

5.� Association Development Project5.�.1 Evaluation Tables


page 4

for BC, the oral vaccination for calves, and for the Emergency Response Course. The latterproject will assist all brand inspection to deal with emergency animal transport and vehicleaccidents involving livestock.

The applicants generally met the objectives of the projects and scoredhighest for their contribution to the overall health and welfare of the beef animal. Theseprojects need to be measured in a longer time frame than four years. These projects alsoraise the issue of the need to reduce matching funding levels below 50% to trigger fromthe Trust for basic research.

5.2 Association Development Project5.2.1 Evaluation Tables

# Title Applicant Cost BCIDF Score112 Socio-Economic Impacts on

the Beef Cattle IndustryBC Cattlemen’s Assoc. 37 800 27 800 8.0

118 Aboriginal Affairs Project BC Cattlemen’s Assoc 80 428 64 218 7.8147 Communication and Extension

ProjectGrasslands ConservationCouncil of BC

66 000 20 000 9.1

164 National LivestockIdentification for Dairy

BC Branch, HolsteinAssociation of Canada

6 900 3 450 7.6

166 Herefords Blossom in theOkanagan

BC Junior HerefordAssociation

53 833 2 000 9.4

171 Website Development Project Peace River Forage Assoc 8 493 3 500 8.8172 Cattlemen’s Education Day

2002BC Cattlemen’s Assoc 3 000 0 8.9

175 Summer Institute 2002 BC Agriculture in theClassroom Foundation

27 339 16 250 8.3

202 Summer Institute forEducators, 2004

BC Agriculture in theClassroom Foundation

24 590 7 295 9.0

206 Consumer Thank YouCampaign

Cattle Industry DevelopmentCouncil

18 261 7 581 8.6

211 Cariboo Beef Promotion andEducation Project

Cariboo Cattlemen’sAssociation

1 647 786 8.8

TOTALS 328 291 152 880 8.6

Evaluation of Association Development Category ScoreOverall value to improve viability, sustainability etc of beef industry 8.2Ability to increase productivity/profitability of individual producer 8.3Ability to increase knowledge and capacity of producers over the long term 8.5Value for funds spent 9.0Financial contributions from other sources 9.0Ability to increase environmental sustainability practices 8.7Ability to increase marketing skills 8.0Ability to increase public awareness and acceptance of the beef industry 8.7Contribution to the production of safe high quality product -Contribution to the overall health and welfare of the beef animal 8.5Overall Score for this Category 8.6

5.2.2 Assessment of Association DevelopmentThese were projects submitted by BC agricultural associations, which benefit the

cattle industry. The eleven projects scored relatively high on the basis of value for fundsspent and the financial contributions from other sources. The highest scoring project was

1� 1�


5.�.� Assessment of Association Development These were projects submitted by BC agricultural associations, which benefit the cattle industry. The eleven projects scored relatively high on the basis of value for funds spent and the financial contributions from other sources. The highest scoring project was #166, “Herefords Blossom in the Okanagan” where a seed money contribution generated valuable response for the Junior Hereford Association and training for its members. The AITC (Agriculture in the Classroom) projects scored higher than in the past due to the greater input of non-government funds. The lowest scoring project in the category was project # 164, National Livestock Identification for Dairy, managed by the BC Branch of the Holstein Association of Canada. It scored low on ability to increase producer knowledge and capacity and for limited impact on marketing skills and for low value for funds spent.

5.�.� Resources $328 291 of cash and in-kind was allocated to these eleven projects of which $152 880 or 46.6% was contributed by BCIDF. The projects scored highest where the associations were able to capture non-government funding and work with others to create high value for the funds spent.

Reach These projects have excellent reach by direct communication to members of the associations and contact with most people in the beef cattle industry by publication of results in Beef In BC. Some of the projects also serve to enhance public awareness and acceptance of the beef cattle industry.

Results Excellent results have been obtained for the Junior Hereford Association project, the Grasslands communication project, the Peace River Forage Website project and the Cariboo Beef promotion project. The applicants met the objectives of the projects. The highest scoring projects also had the potential to educate industry and public participants over a long period of time by establishing project results on their websites such as www.bcgrasslands.org and www.peaceforage.bc.ca. The Junior Hereford Association educated their youth on how to organize a show as well as how to show their animals in a competition.

The Cariboo Cattlemen Association has long-term benefits from their display boards and a wide array of display materials to members and the general public.

Fraser/Nechako Riparian Project & Field-day, Photos by L Grafton

14


15

5.� Environmental Issue Projects5.�.1 Evaluation Tables


page 5

# Title Applicant Cost BCIDF Score144 Can cattle use of water

from ponds and dugoutsbe improved?

Dr. Doug Veira,Kamloops RangeResearch Unit

67 250 14 000 7.2

156 TNNWMC EducationalPackage

Southern Interior WeedManagement Committee

11 000 6 000 8.0

157 Fraser Nechako On-FarmRiparian Project

BC ConservationFoundation

177 846 40 000 9.4

163 Environmental AwarenessSeminar

Nechako Valley RegionalCattlemen

3 568 1 568 8.1

173 Noxious Weed FieldGuide

Southern Interior WeedManagement Committee

32 000 5 000 9.3

174 Benefits of IntensiveAgriculture for theEnvironment


1 987 1 075 8.3

186 Agriculture StewardshipCoordinator

Community FuturesDevelopment Corp. ofNadina

49 100 5 000 8.4

218 2005 Speaker – NVRCAGM


3 737 1 868 7.7

239 KLA Speaker for AGM Kootenay LivestockAssociation

3 210 1 600 7.8

240 Biesenthal Speaker Tour Kootenay LivestockAssociation

12 200 7 000 9.1

TOTALS 361 908 83 111 8.3

Evaluation of Environmental Issues Category ScoreOverall value to improve viability, sustainability etc of beef industry 8.0Ability to increase productivity/profitability of individual producer 7.7Ability to increase knowledge and capacity of producers over the long term 7.8Value for funds spent 9.1Financial contributions from other sources 8.8Ability to increase environmental sustainability practices 8.8Ability to increase marketing skills -Ability to increase public awareness and acceptance of the beef industry 8.9Contribution to the production of safe high quality product -Contribution to the overall health and welfare of the beef animal 8.3Overall Score for this Category 8.3

5.3.2 Assessment of Environmental IssuesThese projects represent a diversity of environmental objectives, including research,

environmental speeches at producer meetings, riparian education and on farm action andnoxious weed educational development. The highest scoring project was theFraser/Nechako On-Farm Riparian project (#157) developed by the BC Conservation

14 15


5.�.� Assessment of Environmental Issues These projects represent a diversity of environmental objectives, including research, environmental speeches at producer meetings, riparian education and on farm action and noxious weed educational development. The highest scoring project was the Fraser/Nechako On-Farm Riparian project (#157) developed by the BC Conservation Foundation. The 2003 Noxious Weed Field Guide developed by the Southern Interior Weed Management Committee in cooperation with the BCMAFF was a close second. As a group, the projects scored lower because of the research project # 144 and AGM speakers with limited long-term value.

5.�.� Resources $361 908 of cash or in-kind was allocated to the ten projects of which $83 111 or 23.0 % was sourced from BCIDF.

Reach These projects have a favourable impact on producers, environmental professionals across governments, MAL agrologists and on the general public. Many of the projects also brought in funding from sources outside agriculture and government.

Results Excellent results have been obtained from projects #157, #173,and #240. The Fraser/Nechako Riparian project brought diverse and previously conflicting agencies together to focus on riparian education and on-farm projects and served to prepare ranchers for the Environmental Farm Plan process. The Biesenthal speaker tour (#240) also assisted livestock producers and environmental agency staff to see the importance of having an Environmental Farm Plan. These projects as a group had a high value for funds spent and for the ability to enhance public awareness.

Fraser River riparian fencing project east of Prince George, Photo by L Grafton

16


17

5.4 Land Issue Projects5.4.1 Evaluation Tables


page 6

# Title Applicant Cost BCIDF Score53 Prediction and Control of

Tree EncroachmentKamloops Range ResearchStation

205 554 102 777 7.3

143 Living On and Off the Land Museum of the CaribooChilcotin

17 000 6 500 8.4

159 Bulkley Valley LRMPAgriculture/Wildlife ZoneProject

Bulkley Valley Cattlemen’sAssociation

62 920 3 920 8.1

167 Documenting the continuedimpact and dispersal of bio-control insects onhoundstongue and spottedknapweed in BC

Dr. Rose DeClerk-Floate,Lethbridge ResearchStation

146 725 63 312 7.7

177 Aboriginal AffairsCommittee Special Project

BC Cattlemen’sAssociation

13 359 13 359 7.5

181 Seeing the CommonGround Conference

Community FuturesDevelopment Corp. -Cranbrook

8 673 2 100 9.0

192 Ranching Intervention inHaida III Supreme CourtAppeal


30 664 28 000 8.0

193 Forage Response for TreeDistribution

Maurice Hansen, RockyMountain Trench Society

20 000 15 000 7.3

196 Morice LRMP ArabilityProject

Pleasant ValleyCattlemen’s Association

130 821 49 740 7.4

197 Hamilton CommonageGrassland MonitoringProject

Grassland ConservationCouncil of BC

106 653 36 000 8.0

227 Waldo North GrasslandRestoration – Planning

Rocky Mountain TrenchSociety

78 681 36 896 7.9

TOTALS 821 050 357 604 7.8

Evaluation of Land Issues Category ScoreOverall value to improve viability, sustainability etc of beef industry 8.4Ability to increase productivity/profitability of individual producer 7.8Ability to increase knowledge and capacity of producers over the long term 7.5Value for funds spent 7.7Financial contributions from other sources 7.3Ability to increase environmental sustainability practices 8.1Ability to increase marketing skills -Ability to increase public awareness and acceptance of the beef industry 8.1Contribution to the production of safe high quality product -Contribution to the overall health and welfare of the beef animal -Overall Score for this Category 7.8

5.4.2 Assessment of Land IssuesThese eleven projects represent research, arability studies, aboriginal affairs and

grassland monitoring and rotation, which generally scored lower and had a high BCIDFfunding component. The highest scoring project was the “Seeing the Common Ground”Conference managed by the Community Futures Development Corporation in Cranbrook.

16 17


5.4.� Assessment of Land Issues These eleven projects represent research, arability studies, aboriginal affairs and grassland monitoring and rotation, which generally scored lower and had a high BCIDF funding component. The highest scoring project was the “Seeing the Common Ground” Conference managed by the Community Futures Development Corporation in Cranbrook. Basic research projects scored relatively low due to the high cost and limited triggered funding.

5.4.� Resources $821 050 of cash and in-kind was allocated to these eleven projects of which $ 357 604 or 43.6 % was contributed by BCIDF.

Reach The research and arability studies serve to assist professionals involved but have less direct impact on the farming industry as a whole and on the public.

Results Arability studies have great long term benefit but there is no guarantee that identified arable land will be added to Agricultural Development Areas or that it will be made available for agricultural leases. The Bulkley Arability project with BCIDF contribution matching the in-kind value of producer time scored higher than the Morice Arability project which had a high degree of non-triggered funding. Province-wide requests by BCMAL agrologists for more arability studies have prompted CIDC to encourage BCMAL executives to contribute more funds or for the applicants to search elsewhere for non-government funding to trigger from the Trust. Control of tree encroachment on upper level grasslands was a major problem where for example the Cariboo region was losing grassland at 1% per year to pine and fir ingrowth. Landscape analysis revealed that aspect, slope and elevation were the main environmental factors influencing tree cover. Early spring burning was very effective at killing small trees. While the applicants generally met the project objectives, there was limited extension of project results.

Tree Encroachment in the Cariboo, Photo by P Fofonoff

18


19

5.5 Market Expansion Projects5.5.1 Evaluation Tables


page 7

# Title Applicant Cost BCIDF Score178 Milestones Fall 2002

PromotionMilestones Restaurant 140 941 50 000 8.7

180 abc Country ComfortsRestaurant Promotion

abc CountryRestaurants Inc.

153 330 37 500 8.9

182 Buy BC Bulls Campaign BC Hereford Assoc forall BC breed assoc.

958 479 8.0

187 Livestock MarketingSeminar

Okanagan FeedersCooperative Assoc.

3 809 1 904 8.0

190 Agriculture on the Air Nechako ValleyRegional Cattlemen

5 070 1 800 8.5

194 Milestones PromotionFall and Winter 2003/04

Milestones Restaurant 217 125 50 000 9.0

198 BC Action Plan for BSEInduced SurplusInventories of Cull Cattle

BC Cattlemen’s Assoc 86 595 65 245 8.4

199 Media Promotion –Appreciation toConsumers

Kamloops Stockmen’sAssociation

3 000 1 500 8.8

200 Panago Steak PizzaLaunch

Panago Pizza 747 827 50 000 9.2

204 “Future of the CanadianBeef Industry”Presentations

Nechako ValleyRegional Cattlemen

3 100 1 550 8.6

207 Quiznos PhillyCheesesteak SubPromotion

Quiznos CanadaCorporation

493 146 50 000 8.9

209 Buy BC Bulls Campaign BC Angus Assoc. 888 444 8.0212 Abattoir Feasibility,

Market Strategy andBusiness Dev. Plan

Kootenay LivestockAssociation

62 239 22 327 8.4

214 Milestones PromotionFall & Winter 2004/05

Milestones Restaurants 230 407 50 000 9.2

215 Ranchland Heroes BeefPromotion

abc CountryRestaurants

149 537 40 000 9.2

220 Cattle Marketing Seminar North OkanaganLivestock Association

975 488 9.0

223 Northwest Premium MeatCo-op

Community FuturesDevelopment Corp -Nadina

55 000 15 000 8.6

TOTALS 2 353 947 438 417 8.7

18 19


5.5.� Assessment of Market Expansion One of the most important categories to be funded since the onset of BSE in Canada in May 2003 is that of Market Expansion. Seventeen projects were funded which include restaurant promotions partnered with BIC, Agriculture on the Air, two feasibility studies for new abattoirs at Cranbrook and Telkwa, and cattle marketing seminars. Overall rating for this category was high at 8.7 with higher values for funding, value of funds spent and for contribution to the production of a safe high quality product.

5.5.� Resources $ 2 353 947 was allocated to these seventeen projects of which $ 438 417 or 18.6 % was contributed by BCIDF. This group of projects was the best-leveraged category.

Reach These projects are of tremendous value to all beef producers in BC in expanding the market for less-utilized beef products and for enhancing mature animal sales. Market promotions plus the NVRC project, Agriculture on the Air, serve to enhance public awareness of the plight of the rancher.

Results Post BSE the consumer promotions sponsored by Milestones Restaurants, Panago Pizza, Quizno’s Canada and abc Country Restaurants all served to achieve their objectives of enhancing sales of secondary cuts of beef. The abattoir studies illustrated the potential for enhanced local sales and the high cost to develop new facilities for the livestock sector to meet the new Meat Inspection Regulations. As a group, these projects all met their objectives and served to provide long term gain to producers and to the general public.


page 8

Evaluation of Market Expansion Category ScoreOverall value to improve viability, sustainability etc of beef industry 8.8Ability to increase productivity/profitability of individual producer 8.4Ability to increase knowledge and capacity of producers over the long term 7.9Value for funds spent 9.1Financial contributions from other sources 9.4Ability to increase environmental sustainability practices -Ability to increase marketing skills 8.4Ability to increase public awareness and acceptance of the beef industry 8.9Contribution to the production of safe high quality product 9.0Contribution to the overall health and welfare of the beef animal -Overall Score for this Category 8.7

5.5.2 Assessment of Market ExpansionOne of the most important categories to be funded since the onset of BSE in Canada

in May 2003 is that of Market Expansion. Seventeen projects were funded which includerestaurant promotions partnered with BIC, Agriculture on the Air, two feasibility studiesfor new abattoirs at Cranbrook and Telkwa, and cattle marketing seminars. Overall ratingfor this category was high at 8.7 with higher values for funding, value of funds spent andfor contribution to the production of a safe high quality product.

5.5.3 Resources$ 2 353 947 was allocated to these seventeen projects of which $ 438 417 or 18.6 %

was contributed by BCIDF. This group of projects was the best-leveraged category.ReachThese projects are of tremendous value to all beef producers in BC in expanding the

market for less-utilized beef products and for enhancing mature animal sales. Marketpromotions plus the NVRC project, Agriculture on the Air, serve to enhance publicawareness of the plight of the rancher.

ResultsPost BSE the consumer promotions

sponsored by Milestones Restaurants,Panago Pizza, Quizmo’s Canada andabc Country Restaurants all served toachieve their objectives of enhancingsales of secondary cuts of beef.

The abattoir studies illustratedthe potential for enhanced local sales andthe high cost to develop new facilities forthe livestock sector to meet the new MeatInspection Regulations.

As a group, these projects all mettheir objectives and served to providelong term gain to producers and to thegeneral public.

5.6 Production Improvement Practices

abc Restaurant Beef Promotion

�0


�1

5.6 Production Improvement Practices5.6.1 Evaluation Tables


page 9

5.6.1 Evaluation Tables

# Title Applicant Cost BCIDF Score18 Improved Forage and

Grain Utilization forthe Beef Industry

Dr. J Shelford, UBC(completed by Dr. JimThompson)

199 300 134 325 6.2

119 Forage VarietyEvaluation in BC

BC Forage Council 218 603 126 970 8.2

145 Forage NutrientManagement forLongevity

Peace River ForageAssociation

73 050 30 820 9.0

150 Silage Corn Testing &Evaluation

Pacific Field CornAssociation

109 000 37 500 8.8

168 Publication of“Advanced SilageCorn Management”

Pacific Field CornAssociation

67 379 3 000 9.5

170 Pasture and WoodlandManagementWorkshop Series

Peace River ForageAssociation

33 528 13 220 9.0

184 Weed Education andPrevention – BoundaryDistrict

Boundary WeedManagement Committee

14 076 6 875 8.9

201 2004 Forage – BeefSeminar Series

Prince GeorgeCattlemen’s Association

12 314 4 824 9.4

205 Cattle MarketingSeminar

North OkanaganLivestock Association

626 313 9.0

208 Range ManagementSeminar Series

Kootenay LivestockAssociation

9 750 5 250 8.8

219 2005 Forage and BeefSeminars


222 Verified BeefProduction Pilot


147 725 57 863 7.9

229 BCFC Field DaysAug3-4, 2005


TOTALS 906 178 428 860 8.7

Evaluation of Production Improvement Practices Category ScoreOverall value to improve viability, sustainability etc of beef industry 8.9Ability to increase productivity/profitability of individual producer 8.6Ability to increase knowledge and capacity of producers over the long term 8.7Value for funds spent 9.0Financial contributions from other sources 8.8Ability to increase environmental sustainability practices 8.5Ability to increase marketing skills 8.7Ability to increase public awareness and acceptance of the beef industry 8.7Contribution to the production of safe high quality product -Contribution to the overall health and welfare of the beef animal -Overall Score for this Category 8.7

5.6.2 Assessment of Production Improvement PracticesThese thirteen projects represent research, forage and corn variety evaluation,

forage/range/pasture/beef extension and the Verified Beef Pilot program. They have arelatively high overall value at 8.7 and scored highest as a group for overall value to

�0 �1


5.6.� Assessment of Production Improvement Practices These thirteen projects represent research, forage and corn variety evaluation, forage/range/pasture/beef extension and the Verified Beef Pilot program. They have a relatively high overall value at 8.7 and scored highest as a group for overall value to improve viability of the beef industry, value for funds spent, financial contributions from other sources and for contribution to a safe high quality product. The highest scoring project of any category was the publication of “Advanced Silage Corn Management” sponsored by the Pacific Field Corn Association. Seed money provided by BCIDF and other agencies allowed PFCA to realize a profit on advertising and book sales.

5.6.� Resources $906 178 of cash and in-kind was allocated to these thirteen projects of which $428 860 or 47.3 % was sourced from BCIDF. Sixty-one percent of the BCIDF funds were spent on two research projects, one by the late Dr. J. Shelford at UBC and the other on forage variety evaluation in BC.

Reach These projects are of great value to beef producers throughout BC, to crop and livestock professionals and to livestock producer associations.

Results As a group these projects met their objectives and are of great value to the livestock sector. This category had the greatest percentage of projects which scored 9.0 or higher. They were:

#145- Forage Nutrient Management for Longevity – Peace River Forage Assoc. #170- Pasture and Woodland Management Workshops – Peace River Forage #205- Cattle Marketing Seminar – North Okanagan Livestock Association #219- 2005 Forage Beef Seminars – BC Forage Council #201- 2004 Forage Beef Seminars – Prince George Cattlemen’s Association #229- BCFC Field Days, August 3-4, 2005 – BC Forage Council #168- Advanced Silage Corn Management -Pacific Field Corn Association As a group they scored high for overall value to the beef industry value, for funds spent and for financial contributions from other sources. They are especially valuable for their long-term impact on the livestock sector where associations continue to utilize results in publications and/or material posted on their web sites.

Although costly to operate, variety trial projects have a long term, low producer input cost. They affect seed company variety supply availability and offer producers annual production gains of approximately five percent. The other crop management projects offer similar gains. The lowest scoring project was the late Dr. J. Shelford’s research project, which was recently completed by Dr. Jim Thompson. Unfortunately the research results may have limited application.

BCFC Variety Trials Field-day, Smithers, Photo by R Tingle

��


��

5.7 Quality Standards Project5.7.1 Evaluation Tables

5.7.� Assessment of Quality Standards Project #158, a research project by Dr. David Kitts at UBC was the only project in this category. The full title is “ An Assessment of antimicrobial and antioxidant activity of culinary herbs in enhancing the food safety and in preserving the quality of electron beam irradiated ground beef products”.

5.7.� Resources $ 67 250 was allocated to this project of which $44 500 or 66.2% was sourced from BCIDF.

Reach The project had limited impact on livestock producers but the applicant did publish five items with graduate students from this work.

Results The project met its obligations and concluded that both parsley and cilantro extracts retarded lipid oxidation and are complementary to the irradiation of ground beef. Whether the results will be used in the commercial sector is unknown at this time. As a project it scored relatively low for overall value to the industry and for financial contributions from other sources and for value for funds spent. It does illustrate the problem faced by research institutions in BC in developing good projects to fit BCIDF funding. Finding contributions to trigger from the Trust, whether cash or in-kind, are a problem. Research projects are difficult to assess for overall value to improve the viability and sustainability of the beef industry over the long term.


page 11

# Title Applicant Cost BCIDF Score158 An assessment of

antimicrobial andantioxidant activity ofculinary herbs …irradiated ground beefproducts

Dr. David Kitts, UBC 67 250 44 500 6.2

TOTALS 67 250 44 500

Evaluation of Quality Standards Category ScoreOverall value to improve viability, sustainability etc of beef industry 6Ability to increase productivity/profitability of individual producer -Ability to increase knowledge and capacity of producers over the long term -Value for funds spent 6Financial contributions from other sources 6Ability to increase environmental sustainability practices -Ability to increase marketing skills 6Ability to increase public awareness and acceptance of the beef industry -Contribution to the production of safe high quality product 7Contribution to the overall health and welfare of the beef animal -Overall Score for this Category 6.2

5.7.2 Assessment of Quality StandardsProject #158, a research project by Dr. David Kitts at UBC was the only project in

this category. The full title is “ An Assessment of antimicrobial and antioxidant activity ofculinary herbs in enhancing the food safety and in preserving the quality of electron beamirradiated ground beef products”.5.7.3 Resources

$ 67 250 was allocated to this project of which $44 500 or 66.2% was sourced fromBCIDF.

ReachThe project had limited impact on livestock producers but the applicant did publish

five items with graduate students from this work.ResultsThe project met its obligations and concluded that both parsley and cilantro extracts

retarded lipid oxidation and are complementary to the irradiation of ground beef. Whetherthe results will be used in the commercial sector is unknown at this time. As a project itscored relatively low for overall value to the industry and for financial contributions fromother sources and for value for funds spent.

It does illustrate the problem faced by research institutions in BC in developinggood projects to fit BCIDF funding. Finding contributions to trigger from the Trust,whether cash or in-kind, are a problem. Research projects are difficult to assess for overallvalue to improve the viability and sustainability of the beef industry over the long term.

5.8 Provincial Cattle Association Projects5.8.1 Evaluation Tables

��


5.8 Provincial Cattle Association Projects5.8.1 Evaluation Tables Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund

Evaluation 2002-2006

page 12

# Title Applicant Total Cost CIDC BCIDF ScoreC01 BCACF 2000-

2001BC Assoc CattleFeeders

28 000 28 000 0 7.8

C02 BCBFA 2000-2001

BC Breeders/Feeders 23 839 11 937 11 937 8.7

C03 BCCA Projects2000-2001

BC Cattlemen’s Assoc 239 292 119 646 119 646 9.0

C04 Projects 2000-2001

BC Milk Producers 98 000 33 500 33 500 8.8

C05 MemberProject

Mainland Dairymen’s 14 950 3 975 3 975 8.3

C06 Projects 2001-2002

Mainland Dairymen’s 13 950 3 475 3 475 8.3

C07 BCBFA 2001-2002


C08 BCMP 2001-2002




C10 BCACF 2001-2002

BC Assoc CattleFeeders

45 500 24 750 19 840 7.9

C11 BCBFA 2002-2003




C13 BCACF 2002-2003


34 932 30 495 0 8.1

C14 BCBFA2003-2004




C16 BCMP 2002-2003


C17 BCACFProjects 2003-2004


22 500 11 250 11 250 8.3

C18 BCMP 2004-2005


C19 BCACFProjects 2004-2005


65 000 29 611 29 611 8.3



C21 BCBFA 2004-2005


TOTALS 2 521 288 1 133 154 1 069 521 8.8

Evaluation of Provincial Cattle Association Projects ScoreOverall value to improve viability, sustainability etc of beef industry 9.0Ability to increase productivity/profitability of individual producer 8.5Ability to increase knowledge and capacity of producers over the long term 8.6Value for funds spent 8.7Financial contributions from other sources 7.8Ability to increase environmental sustainability practices 9.5

�4


�5

5.8.� Assessment of Provincial Cattle Association Projects The Trust agreement states, “disbursement from the BCID fund must not be directed to industry associations except on the basis of an approved project that is directed towards achieving the purpose and objectives of this agreement.” The CIDC has been diligent in only funding projects that meet the criteria of the Trust Agreement in this category. The value of this set of projects is that the CIDC check-off funds are used by the provincial member associations to trigger matching dollars from the BCID trust. Although slightly over expended for BC check-off dollars, the budgets are within reason when Alberta rebates its share of BC check-off funds. These project applications thus significantly impact the long-term sustainability of provincial associations and create stable funding for the beef industry. All twenty-one projects completed since this type of project began in 2000 have been evaluated. The average score for the group was higher than any other category and was significant for overall value to the industry, ability to increase environmental sustainability practices and ability to increase public awareness and acceptance of the beef industry.

5.8.� Resources $2 521 288 was allocated to these projects of which $1 069 521 or 42.4% was sourced from BCIDF. The other funds were mainly sourced from the CIDC check-off with some funds from the producer associations themselves. There are also some unstated in-kind producer time contributions inherent in these projects.

Reach These projects are of tremendous value to everyone involved in the beef industry and generally serve to enhance public perception.

Results As a group, the projects of the BC Cattlemen’s Association and the BC Breeders and Feeders Association averaged 9.2 and 9.1, respectively. Their projects generally scored well in every parameter. The BCCA is extremely valuable in conducting industry–wide programs which often tie into provincial concerns. The BCBFA is largely conducting extension projects for new entrants in the cattle industry.


page 13

Evaluation of Provincial Cattle Association Projects ScoreOverall value to improve viability, sustainability etc of beef industry 9.0Ability to increase productivity/profitability of individual producer 8.5Ability to increase knowledge and capacity of producers over the long term 8.6Value for funds spent 8.7Financial contributions from other sources 7.8Ability to increase environmental sustainability practices 9.5Ability to increase marketing skills 8.1Ability to increase public awareness and acceptance of the beef industry 8.9Contribution to the production of safe high quality product 8.8Contribution to the overall health and welfare of the beef animal 8.6Contribution to the sustainability of provincial associations 9.9Overall Score for this Category 8.8

5.8.2 Assessment of Provincial Cattle Association ProjectsThe Trust agreement states, “disbursement from the BCID fund must not be

directed to industry associations except on the basis of an approved project that is directedtowards achieving the purpose and objectives of this agreement.” The CIDC has beendiligent in only funding projects that meet the criteria of the Trust Agreement in thiscategory. The value of this set of projects is that the CIDC check-off funds are used by theprovincial member associations to trigger matching dollars from the BCID trust. Althoughslightly over expended for BC check-off dollars, the budgets are within reason whenAlberta rebates its share of BC check-off funds. These project applications thussignificantly impact the long-term sustainability of provincial associations and create stablefunding for the beef industry.

All twenty-one projects completed since this type of project began in 2000 havebeen evaluated. The average score for the group was higher than any other category andwas significant for overall value to the industry, ability to increase environmentalsustainability practices and ability to increase public awareness and acceptance of the beefindustry.

5.8.3 Resources$2 521 288 was allocated to these projects of which $1 069 521 or 42.4% was

sourced from BCIDF. The other funds were mainly sourced from the CIDC check-off withsome funds from the producer associations themselves. There are also some unstated in-kind producer time contributions inherent in these projects.

ReachThese projects are of tremendous value to everyone involved in the beef industry

and generally serve to enhance public perception.ResultsAs a group, the projects of the BC Cattlemen’s Association and the BC Breeders

and Feeders Association averaged 9.2 and 9.1, respectively. Their projects generally scoredwell in every parameter. The BCCA is extremely valuable in conducting industry–wideprograms which often tie into provincial concerns. The BCBFA is largely conductingextension projects for new entrants in the cattle industry.

The BCBFA commissioned the Dawson Creek Veterinary Clinic to prepare in-depth health protocols for each type of cattle and disease problem (project #C07). This isone example of an excellent project that could be made available for general distribution or

�4 �5


The BCBFA commissioned the Dawson Creek Veterinary Clinic to prepare in-depth health protocols for each type of cattle and disease problem (project #C07). This is one example of an excellent project that could be made available for general distribution or posted on a website with enhanced awareness. The only failure of this and similar projects is to not ensure that the valuable results are made available to a wide range of livestock producers, even beyond the membership of a specific association. The BC Association of Cattle Feeders illustrated the most improvement in projects over time. Their projects tend to focus on animal health and new issues management and generally provide most benefit to members of their association. The BC Milk Producers Association projects averaged 8.7 and scored highest for overall value to improve sustainability, ability to increase knowledge of producers over time and for the ability to enhance environmental sustainability practices. Overall, the provincial cattle associations did an excellent job of completing project objectives as approved for funding.

6. Review

The team has reviewed all BCIDF projects completed between 2002 and July 2006 as well as 21 provincial cattle association projects completed since 2000. We featured the highest scoring projects, the highlights from the review and the assistance to the beef industry, post BSE event.

6.1 Project Highlights The highest scoring project at 9.5 was the “Advanced Silage Corn Management” publication by the Pacific Field Corn Association which can be viewed on the www.farmwest.com website. Seed money provided by BCIDF and other agencies allowed PFCA to realize a profit on advertising and product sales on a quality publication recognized across North America.

Five other projects tied for second at 9.4. These were 1. #157 – Fraser Nechako Riparian project – BCCF 2. # 201 – 2004 Forage Beef Seminar Series – PGCA 3. # 229 – BCFC Field Days 2005 – BC Forage Council 4. # C11 – BC Breeders and Feeders Association – 2002-2003 5. # C20 – BCCA projects 2004-2005

Jr Hereford Bonanza 2002, Photo by D Richardson PFCA Corn Silage Book, Photo by W Goerzen

�6


�7

The highlights were the health protocols within BCBFA project # C07 which could be up-dated and distributed to a wider producer base. Another was project # 166 conducted by the BC Junior Hereford Association, which used BCIDF funds to host a national show and improve management skills of juniors and return a profit to the association. Many applicants and provincial associations sought projects to enhance the beef industry following the onset of BSE in May 2003. Projects #194, #200, #207, #214 and #215 were BIC/restaurant applications to enhance current market sales and to improve sales of secondary cuts of meat. Thanks are due to Milestones Restaurants, Panago Pizza, Quizno’s Canada, and abc Country Restaurants for this positive endeavor in cooperation with the Beef Information Centre. Two abattoir feasibility studies were conducted for Cranbrook and Telkwa, which were valuable in identifying markets for BC livestock producers and estimating operating expenses for facilities to meet the new BC meat inspection regulations. BCCA project #198 developed a BC Action Plan to solve the BSE event induced surplus inventories of cull cattle. Newer BCCA projects not yet completed further developed a partnered retail program. The CIDC and the Kamloops Stockmen’s Association each developed a “Thank You Consumer” project for increased beef consumption following the BSE event. 6.� Funding sources for the 89 projects under review

Excluding the totals for the provincial cattle association projects, the ratio of BCIDF to other funding sources increased from 1.20 in the last review period to 3.15 in this review timeframe. This means that CIDC has been successful in bringing in $�.15 for every dollar spent by BCIDF on the seven categories identified in �00�.


page 15

Many applicants and provincial associations sought projects to enhance the beefindustry following the onset of BSE in May 2003. Projects #194, #200, #207, #214 and#215 were BIC/restaurant applications to enhance current market sales and to improvesales of secondary cuts of meat. Thanks are due to Milestones Restaurants, Panago Pizza,Quizno’s Canada, and abc Country Restaurants for this positive endeavor in cooperationwith the Beef Information Centre. Two abattoir feasibility studies were conducted for Cranbrook and Telkwa, whichwere valuable in identifying markets for BC livestock producers and estimating operatingexpenses for facilities to meet the new BC meat inspection regulations. BCCA project #198 developed a BC Action Plan to solve the BSE event inducedsurplus inventories of cull cattle. Newer BCCA projects not yet completed furtherdeveloped a partnered retail program. The CIDC and the Kamloops Stockmen’s Association each developed a “ThankYou Consumer” project for increased beef consumption following the BSE event.

6.2 Funding sources for the 89 projects under review

Category (# Projects) Total BCIDF BCIDF Share %Animal Care (5) 281 604 116 615 41.4Association Development (11) 328 291 152 880 46.6Environmental Issues (10) 361 908 83 111 23.0Land Issues (11) 821 050 357 604 43.6Market Expansion (17) 2 353 947 438 417 18.6Prod Improve Practices (13) 906 178 428 860 47.3Quality Standards (1) 67 250 44 500 66.2SUBTOTAL (78) 5 120 228 1 621 987 31.6Provincial Associations (21) 2 521 288 1 069 521 42.4TOTALS (89) 7 641 516 2 691 508 35.2

Excluding the totals for the provincial cattle association projects, the ratio of BCIDF toother funding sources increased from 1.20 in the last review period to 3.15 in this reviewtimeframe. This means that CIDC has been successful in bringing in $3.15 for everydollar spent by BCIDF on the seven categories identified in 2002.

6.3 Project linkages to the original Trust AgreementThe review team was asked to evaluate how well CIDC had adhered to the Trust fundrequirements. The key requirements in sections 4 to 8 and 10 in the trust agreement, insummary, state:Section 4: “Qualifying Matching Fund Balance” means all money received by the CIDC

- that is money collected from any segment of the beef cattle industrythrough levies paid to the CIDC;

�6 �7


6.� Project linkages to the original Trust Agreement The review team was asked to evaluate how well CIDC had adhered to the Trust fund requirements. The key requirements in sections 4 to 8 and 10 in the trust agreement, in summary, state: Section 4: “Qualifying Matching Fund Balance” means all money received by the CIDC

- that is money collected from any segment of the beef cattle industry through levies paid to the CIDC;- or fees paid or contributions made to the CIDC by any segment of the beef cattle industry, - or any other money given to the CIDC, except if from any government, - if intended to be used consistently with the purpose and objectives described in this agreement; - less, all money paid by the CIDC for a purpose or objective inconsistent with the purpose and objectives described in this agreement, including, without limitation, refunds of levies; - plus, all money paid into the BCID Fund by the Trustee pursuant to this agreement.

Section 5: The CIDC must send documentation to the province.

Section 6: The CIDC may spend the funds only for the purpose and objectives defined in this agreement (see section 2.1 of this review).

Section 7: The fund may not be utilized for income stabilization or support for individual beef cattle producers, or for export subsidies, or to support lobbying efforts for any compensation program for the beef cattle industry

Section 8: Disbursement from the BCID Fund must not be directed to industry associations except on an approved project basis.

Section 10: The CIDC must develop a corporate plan framework which sets the context for administering the BCID Fund through a business planning process.

Review Team Recommendations The Evaluation Team is confident that CIDC is operating within the terms of the Trust Agreement; however the team recommends that Council:

1. Conduct a further review of priorities to update the Strategic Plan post BSE and that Council consider the involvement of previous project applicants and member association representatives in the process.

2. Encourage all applicants to utilize non-government funding to trigger dollars from the BCIDF Trust.

�8


�9

6.4 Implementation of Previous Recommendations The 2002 Evaluation Team recommended:

1. Stronger linkages to other funding agencies

2. Council to take a lead role in facilitating and coordinating the development of the Strategic Plans by both regional and provincial beef organizations

3. More emphasis be placed on measurable outcomes in the application process

4. Improving reach and feedback can be expected to improve overall project results

5. Council should work with BIC to follow up on restaurant promotions to get a better understanding of long term impacts

6. Request a greater contribution of funding by other sub-societies which benefit from BCIDF projects

7. Utilize internet more for information dissemination

8. Improve data base to keep track of various sources of funding

9. Evaluations could be used as an interactive tool specifically to track progress in meeting strategic planning objectives of organizations concerned with sustained growth of the beef sector in BC

10. Consider initiating projects that would contribute to the achievement of the fund objectives

Review of Previous Recommendations 1. The 2006 Evaluation Team believes that Council has engaged 2002

recommendations numbers 1,3,4,6,7, and 10.

2. The Team agrees with Council’s inaction on recommendations 2 and 9 and believes that it is the responsibility of the individual organizations, not CIDC, to facilitate and coordinate the development of Strategic Plans for regional and provincial organizations.

3. It is more difficult to work with BIC to complete recommendation #5 now that BIC has moved its Vancouver office and staff to Calgary. Knowledge of restaurant menu items from current projects has shown that the addition of project objectives to core menu items illustrates long term gain from BCIDF funding without the need for further evaluation.

4. The financial data base, #8, could be improved by capturing all actual income and expenses from the final reports, not just BCIDF expenditure.

�8 �9


6.5 Council Remuneration CIDC operates under Operating Resolutions approved in January 1994 and updated periodically by vote of Council. A per diem was set at $150.00 per meeting for council members on April 24, 2002. After reviewing remuneration schedules from a number of agricultural associations and other trust fund councils, the 2006 Evaluation Team recommends that the per diem be adjusted to $200.00 per day away from home, excluding travel time, and that Council members be reimbursed for 1/2 day preparation time per quarterly meeting. Participation in industry tours in diverse parts of the province is a valuable benefit to Council members, but may necessitate hiring replacement labour at home.

7. Review Summary Observations The 2006 Evaluation Team conducted a four-year review of eighty-nine BCIDF projects completed from April 2002 to July 2006. The review included twenty-one projects conducted by the provincial cattle associations that had utilized CIDC check-off funds to trigger matching funding from the BCIDF Trust since 2000.

Overall observations from the review are:1. CIDC has done an excellent job in supporting applicants for BCIDF projects in many

facets of the BC beef industry. An expenditure of $2 691 508 from BCIDF for 89 projects since 2001 resulted in a total expenditure of $7 641 516 in the beef industry to July 2006. Excluding the provincial association category, BCIDF brought in $3.15 for every dollar spent. ($1 621 987).

2. CIDC operations have been proactive in encouraging new applications by providing pre and post application assistance and by developing a final report template.

3. There was an excellent response by CIDC to fund projects that assisted the beef industry to cope with the BSE event. A total of seventeen projects were funded in the market expansion category, which achieved the best-leveraged BCIDF funding at 18.6%.

4. The team observed that farm organization applicants need to capture cash and in-kind resources to maximize the funds triggered from the Trust. One main difference from some other funds is that BCIDF can utilize in-kind contributions to trigger funding.

5. There is a need to encourage member associations and their funded consultants to recognize BCIDF as a funding source in their reports.

6. Funding agencies could be encouraged to exchange knowledge of each other’s programs and to explore the potential to develop a single final report and budget procedure. Many volunteer organizations face three different reports on the same project for three sources of funds.

�0


�1

7. It is recognized that several current and past projects have long-term benefit to the beef industry well beyond a four-year review window. For example many of the vaccination methods researched by VIDO are now beginning to benefit both the livestock and human health sector. Forage and nutrient management extension has been recorded on the PFRA website. BC Forage Council and Pacific Field Corn Association project results have been posted on farmwest.com. The BC Junior Hereford Association project did provide lifelong knowledge and experience to young cattlemen across Canada.

8. All funding agencies should review the potential to expand the limited scientific research in the BC beef industry. There are very few projects undertaken by AAFC Research Stations and post-secondary institutions in the northern half of BC where the cow-calf sector is expanding. Research applicants are not generally aware of the various funding sources such as BCIDF that could be used to conduct crop, grazing and livestock studies in BC.

9. The use of CIDC check-off funds to trigger the BCIDF Trust indicates that provincial cattle associations have a stable source of funding linked to the strength of the industry. However they require certainty of funding past 2014 when the Trust is set to expire.

8. Recommendations

The 2006 Evaluation Team makes the following recommendations based on the in-depth review of the completed projects:

1. That CIDC meet with Ministry of Agriculture and Lands Executive to explore options to transfer BCIDF Trust to BCCA to administer in perpetuity. The Team believes that a trust established now could be transferred to the industry organization to administer. If this is not achievable, it is in the best interest of the beef industry to explore extension of the Trust term beyond 2014 to provide certainty to provincial cattle industry organizations.

2. For scientific research applications from post-secondary institutions or AAFC Research Stations, options need to be investigated to reduce Trust trigger requirements as a means to encourage beef industry research projects.

3. A priority review for BCIDF/CIDC Strategic Planning should be accomplished in 2007. In addition to provincial association executive, CIDC could invite representation from BCIDF applicants.

4. All project applications including association projects should have cash or in-kind contributions to trigger funds from the Trust.

5. CIDC to be proactive in encouraging new applications by providing pre-application assistance to develop projects and reasonable budgets, by drafting a speaker assistance application and/or other templates for small project applications. This would make it easier for small associations with limited volunteer time and expertise to apply for and report on projects.

�0 �1


6. Applicants, including producer organizations, should be required to recognize BCIDF funding contributions in any publications or web site material. Consultants must be made aware of this requirement so that the funding source is acknowledged in their reports.

7. Monitor projects to ensure adherence to objectives, timelines, and budget. Where necessary, provide additional assistance to keep the project on track.

8. Continue to encourage new projects such as the health protocols previously developed by the veterinarian for BCBFA. CIDC could give BCIDF project presentations to regional and local associations to feature completed projects and to invite new applications.

9. Encourage project applicants to investigate pre and actual commercialization of products researched or developed in completed projects.

10. Continued contact with other funding agencies is recommended so that information is shared to best match projects, to create awareness of BCIDF priorities and application process and to explore the harmonization of budget forms and a common final report template.

11. Develop methods to better disseminate project results to a wider client base beyond posting results in the newsletter and on the website.

Photo from BCCA Collection

��


APPENDIX ONE – ACRONYMS

AAFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAITC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture in the Classroom FoundationBCACF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BC Association of Cattle FeedersBCBFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BC Breeders and Feeders AssociationBCCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BC Cattlemen’s AssociationBCCF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BC Conservation FoundationBCFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BC Forage CouncilBCIAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BC Investment Agriculture FoundationBCIDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beef Cattle Industry Development FundBIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beef Information CentreBCMAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BC Ministry of Agriculture and LandsBCMPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BC Milk Producers AssociationCCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cariboo Cattlemen’s AssociationCIDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cattle Industry Development CouncilGCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grasslands Conservation Council of BCHACCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point KLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kootenay Livestock AssociationMOFR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ministry of Forest and RangeNKDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nechako/Kitamaat Development FundNOLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Okanagan Livestock AssociationNVRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nechako Valley Regional Cattlemen’s AssociationOII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ownership Identification Inc.PFCA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pacific Field Corn AssociationPGCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prince George Cattlemen’s AssociationPRFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peace River Forage AssociationRMTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rocky Mountain Trench SocietySIWMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Southern Interior Weed Management CommitteeTNNWMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thompson Nicola Noxious Weed Management CommitteeUBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University of British ColumbiaUNBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University of Northern British ColumbiaVIDO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization

Documents

Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund · John Farrow, PAg, Kamloops, BC Peter Fofonoff, PAg, Williams Lake, BC Jim Tingle, PAg, Prince George, BC (Secretary and CIDC Consultant) The