Sask Pulse growers Elections

[parsley]

Many areas of the world,(including Canada once upon a time,) still continue to legally disallow women to vote, too.

Just because compulsory checkoffs are so, doesn't mean they should be acceptable. Pars

[gustgd]

absolutely agree Charlie Malliefarmer/Ianben/whomever feel free to jump in, I always enjoy reading others experiences.

Another thought I have had is setting the levy at a per farm rate( seeing as we are all equal) or reducing the rate to reflect current economics.
The 1% levy was likely set when prices were a 1/4 of today's rates?
Question would values be where they are today if past growers had not contributed?
a plug for their program of hiring market advisers to do the bulls and bears market summary.
I am sending this thread to all the candidates. I know Vicky reads agri-ville maybe others can contribute as well?

[parsley]

"WGRF is a farmer funded and directed organization with $4 to $5 million
in annual base funding."

ok at it from the University's point of view. Kaching. (Scroll down):


http://www.raumenergy.com/articles/Innovation_Place_The_Scene_%20June_2007.pdf

Answer three questions:

1. Who benefits most from checkoffs? Have farmers got perennial varieties yet?

2. Are farmer funders giving more $ but themselves doing with less $?

2. *******Are governments downloading their research allocations? **********

Western Grains also give to University of Man. etc. Lotta lotta cash. Anyone add up all the farmer checkoffs? Canola. Barley. Oats. Western. Cattle. etc. Do we want to keep paying still more? And more? And more? Pars

[dave4441]

Without the checkoff we likely would not have the red lentil industry that we have today. What is that worth to the average farm. Who would support a breeding program for 500000 acres?? Might be fixing lawnmowers this winter if it was not for reds that can be harvested when they dry down. These were key investments.

[gustgd]

Is the point of your Innovation Place link that the new offices are in a great place to be close to the dollars you spend and that answers are just a short walk away rather than across the province or city, WGRF have access to the top scientists in the country with the university/ag Canada and synchrotron all close by. Where would you put them, to save on rent.

Parsley I'll answer your questions if you answer mine
In good faith I'll start

1-Of course farmers benifit most by checkoff dollars.
Just look at the agronomic improvements in varieties over the past number of years, billions have been saved by breeding in resistance to different bugs and diseases.

Checkoff dollars also go to fund trade missions and market development. Next time some foreign country plays fast and loose with international rules we as farmers have people and a war chest to fight back.
Market development is all about doing what you preach, finding out what the customers needs are then helping them fill those needs with your product.
Perennial wheat is closer than you think remember google is your friend.

2)I'll go back to the start of the topic Saskatchewan pulse growers are among the most profitable industries in Canada. Lentils pay the bills on many farms just look at the price of land in lentil growing areas of the province.

Govt offloading of course but look at what's left most of the dollars are matching funds if checkoff dollars go down so do matching funds. Should govt's pay more? probably but where do those dollars come from. I'll answer since it's a retorical question. (the taxpayer)

Now mine anyone can answer as they are real problems that need solutions.

Again how do you recommend new traits or varieties get funded? Your check a box answer would grind research to a halt, how would the long term commitments that are needed for multi generational trials get stable funding?

Where do you think Pulse checkoff dollars should be focused?
Traits, market access, domestic promotion, or something else?

[charliep]

Off the original topic but the mention of perennial wheat always peaks my interest so I googled it. Found the following.

<a href= "http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2008/concurrent/emerging_opportunities/5747_belll.htm">perennial wheat</a>

Way off the original topic but is being funded by the GRDC (Grain Research and Development Corporation) in Australia - from
what I know a compulsory checkoff organization.

[parsley]

gusty,

If you noticed that at times, I am obstinate, and not with the times, and a bit low on the IQ, I have to agree with you. But you're patient. lol

I view with more caution than do you at twilight, as should I at dusk.

It's so easy to get enthusiatic with other people's money. I sure could.

What concerns me is the level of financial committment across every sector, (and I mean $everything$ is eyed up and getting checkoffed,) that farmers are pressured to sign the mortgage for, and even if the farmers' yields rise, for example, the percentage-deduction continually means less money in the farmers' pockets.

Deduction-inflation is built to account for farmer innovation.

And I don't mean to be a doom and gloomer, but I think there will be a boom in commodity prices, followed by an interest rate hikesqueeze, IMHO, that will make UFO seem tame.

I will put this out there......maybe, just maybe, farmers can't afford to develop lentils, or develop oats along with wheat along with canola along with flax along with barley, well you get the picture, ...all simultaneoulsy.

Maybe farmers simply cannot afford to fund everything!

Perhaps we have to look at funding less commodities. Or at committing less dollars. Or at targeting markets OR traits OR etc. instead of all areas. Or putting on dollar ceilings.

I note farmers have been very generous with funding. Too generous, imho, when I view their NET annual incomes in the last 5 years

You question committment? You imply farmers will cop out? Well, how many farmers ask for Western Grain Foundation refunds? What %?

Few farmers question the purpose. It is the level of commitment that needs addressing, imho.

Employees' and MP's pension funds and salaries are tied to inflation.
Farmers are not.

If times get tough, and remember, we are tied up, like two bulls, to a 'ten trillion dollar debt' established-buyer, who MAY get to dragging us through a few years of the Buying Barrens.

I will say this again. A portion of the current checkoff money would be better spent if a farmer put it aside. Kept in an account to cover at least one years taxes if interest rates soar.

And I'll add this: no farmer is too big or too small to fail. Pars

[gustgd]

Parsley
I answered your questions.

Again
How do you recommend new traits or varieties get funded? Your check a box answer would grind research to a halt, how would the long term commitments that are needed for multi generational trials get stable funding?

Where do you think Pulse checkoff dollars should be focused?
Traits, market access, domestic promotion, or something else?


As to the amount of WGRF money requested back I'm not sure if I can share that. Call the office if they give you an answer, ask if you can post it. but I have talked to Alberta barley commission guys, and Sask Canola guys who say it's a big concern

As to spending others money if you think it's a responsibility that is taken lightly, and that it's easy deciding what to fund and what to drop ..... answer the questions and give me some ideas.
What would Parsley do?

[parsley]

You are not gonna like my answers:

“How do you recommend new traits or varieties get funded” A: Volunteer checkoff. Period.

“Your check a box answer would grind research to a halt,” A: That tells you something if no one checks the box. Get the message?

“how would the long term commitments that are needed for multi generational trials get stable funding” A: Farmers will commit to long term funding the same way they commit to building a rink. If they can’t afford it, it won’t get done soley by the farmers. Maybe government will kick in more. try it. Business will kick in more. Try it. Simply Obama-ing projects, (which means ploughing further and further into committment and into debt,) will inevitably condemn ALL projects to financial failure. Perhaps the circles you fly in have never heard of the word “budgeting.” Most grant beggars don’t work within a budget. They overspend and go back to the trough.

“Where do you think Pulse checkoff dollars should be focused?” A: My PERSONAL pick would be on export markets, but organics is very different from conventional thought, so preference may differ greatly. Can’t afford to do traits at the same time, though.

“As to the amount of WGRF money requested back I'm not sure if I can share that” A: It’s farmers’ money, but it’s a secret, right? That is absolutely disgusting. That attitude has got to end right there.

“but I have talked to Alberta barley commission guys, and Sask Canola guys who say it's a big concern“ A: Really, really, now. Well tough teat. If farmers are fed up with funding, read the writing on the wall. Or maybe the myriad of Commissions and the Councils and the Associations will simply put liens against our land. What the hell is the matter with these directors? Run off a copy of the last five years of NET INCOME for prairie farmers, and take it to the meeting and tell them they cannot make a motion until they can recite the last five year farmer net results, verbatim.

Can’t you understand farmers are not Santa Claus? I realize a lot of Directors don’t want the party to end...but the simple fact is this, and read my lips: Farmers cannot, I repeat, cannot continue funding every bloody Tom, Dick and Harry’s university department, and every grain project and every Event. Either adjust or it’s ALL gonna crash.

Is that straight talking enough for you, gusty? Pars

[parsley]

http://www.ebionews.com/news-center/features/grant-a-funding-opportunities/9576-genome-prairie-lands-23m-for-flax-commercial-genomics.html