oats

[stubblejumper]

It seeems that agriville has become a place where people who hate everything can come to vent to anyone who will listen.

[burnt]

"It seeems that agriville has become a place where people who hate everything can come to vent to anyone who will listen."

Don't you just hate when that happens?

[checking]

SJ, if you'll change "hate" to "won't accept", I'll agree with your statement.

Acceptance - will or won't - is the model. It's not to develop and release something, and then receive the shock that its buggered up that which has been acceptable.

[parsley]

It wasn't a frivilous post, charliep

I wanted to show there is a constant flow of information and commerce and central planning between the ag companies; seed growers,governments, and the universities. Central planning. I don't blame them. Each gain and thrive on the system as it is setup. And they don't want to be disturbed.

And each looks towards increased income as checkoffs inflate, and as revenues multiply when more fertilizer is applied by producers to try and make ends meet, and as new sources are created(ie oats)as well.

The university, for example, does financially well via checkoffs and grants. Oats checkoffs came out of the blue. How many ordinary farmers growing oats decided to create an oats checkoff?

Maybe checkoffs needs to be lowered. What about lowering the percentage for 2010 by taking into account the $717,432 coming from CN? Maybe the government needs to quit downloading research funding responsibilities on farmers. perhaps government contributions should not have to be matched by producer money. Maybe the University has to share facilities or have fewer projects.

My point is, and I keep making it charliep, is that the majority of farmers don't make enough money at the farmgate. And all of the above players keep extracting more.

It's a point many don't seem to want to grasp. Pars

[gustgd]

Parsley I am interested in your thoughts on how plant breeding should be done?
To paraphrase your thoughts please add or rephrase if I have you pegged wrong.

a) You think farmers don't make enough at the farmgate, and the .50 cents a tonne optional checkoff on oats is a major contributor.
b) Oat growers don't have enough say in their industry on where these checkoffs go.

[parsley]

Glad to have you so maccessible. For those who would like to ask you a question, Gerrid is on the checkoff foundation:

Dr. Keith Degenhardt, Chairman
Hughenden, AB - Wild Rose Agriculture Producers

David Sefton, Vice-Chair
Broadview, SK - Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission


Bob Anderson
Dugald, MB - Prairie Oat Growers Association


Wayne Bacon
Kinistino, SK - Canadian Canola Growers Association


Don Dewar
Dauphin, MB - Keystone Agricultural Producers


Bill Gehl
Regina, SK - National Farmers Union


Gerrid Gust
Davidson, SK - Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association



Larry Littman
Saltcoats, SK - Canadian Seed Growers Association

Greg Marshall
Regina, SK - Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan



Martin Moore
Fort St John, BC - BC Grain Producers Association



Dr. Stephen Morgan Jones
Lethbridge Research Centre, Agriculture Agri-Food Canada

Cam Goff
Hanley, SK - CWB, Board of Directors


Brian Otto
Warner, AB - Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission


Peter Pepneck
Vauxhall, AB - Alberta Soft Wheat Producers Commission


Barbara Podhorodeski
Shipman, SK - Western Pulse Growers Association


Melvin Stickland
Red Deer, AB - Western Barley Growers Association

[gustgd]

I did a little checking.
http://www.poga.ca/default.aspx?page=30

quick summary

In spring of 2005 a further survey was sent to 7,500 Saskatchewan farmers who identified themselves as oat growers. The overall feedback from those surveys showed a clear majority of those surveyed supported the check off concept.

The SODC interim directors have set some general priorities for allocation of check-off funds: 55 per cent to market development, 25 per cent to research and 10 per cent to each of policy and education.

The last time we talked checkoffs.
https://www.agriville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1259024746

You recommended that research be treated like building the local rink.
parsley posted Nov 26, 2009 0:10
In Davidson when we built the rink we worked years of bingo's, had annual Dinner theatres, $100 lotto's, I was sold for a couple days slave labour, and still it took quite a government grant and a couple local families co-signing until the debt was paid. or we could hope for divine intervention like in Whitewood.

I looked into how much was requested back at WGRF. about 7%. It's the same for most refundable checkoffs with the people that I have talked to.
No reasons that I know just people who expect something for nothing.

My thoughts are that unless there is not farmer money involved in projects we don't have any right to demand results. We as farmers can hope that industry chips in as well, but guess where their money comes from.
We can ask the governments to chip in but why would they unless farmers through in as well.

If you think that it's legitimate to think that a whole lot gets done in the backyard plots, show your work. Try and keep it current.

[parsley]

Let's put it this way, so you can understand the larger concept.

C= checkoff

{lentilpeasbeansC wheatC barleyC flaxC oatsC canolaC} = money from farmers pockets.

1. Additional crops are being added to deduct from.
2. More bushels are being deducted from because farmers fertilize more.
3.Fund seekers surf for industry funding.
4. Governments now download their agricultural research costs on farmers.
5. The CWB has done research which is debited from farmers' pooling accounts.I wonm't keep listing, but do you get the general concept?

Now lets talk about fifty cents, because it sounds like I'm such a tightwad.

So: Go to <p></p>
<p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong><a href="http://www.westerngrains.com/lib/WGRFAnnualReport2002.pdf">(Western Grains)</a></strong></p>

Let's look only at wheat checkoffs and barley checkoffs to begin with.

Add up all money coming in to the fund, that is at the spender-recipients disposal to do as the directors duly order.

Wheat Put In Check Off Sock Under Bed
1998 $
1999 $
2000 $
2001 $
2002 $

I can't add, so please cut and paste, fill in the amounts in actual dollars, (not in hundreds or thousands or millions), and repost it will you?

Barley Put In Check Off Sock Under Bed
1998 $
1999 $
2000 $
2001 $
2002 $

Now, jump ahead to 2008, which includes money from the old PFRA fund, which was farmer money fund: it includes railway cap money, which is also meant as farmer money;and then wheat and barley checkoffs.<p></p>
<p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong><a href=" http://www.westerngrains.com/lib/WGRFAnnualReport2008.pdf">(2008)</a></strong></p>

When you add them up:

Combined Funds in the Endowment, wheat and barley Accounts is Revenue

2008 $10,784 955
2007 $11,003,064
2006 $5,338,216
2005 $4,934,287
2004 $1,685,477

Now, I'm not real sure about money. So add the decimal will you Gerrid? and repost it? And when you post it, would you tell us, since the WGRF is "pursuing broadening its research
check-off on wheat and barley", tell us....just "How Much More" is going to be enough?

The pdf says, LOL, the poor WGRF folks have been "stretching the check-off dollars collected". Yes, well, farmers kind of know what that's like. By the way, if farmers saved their money instead of checking off, everyone could buy a computer that can download,get this, a 4MB pdf that includes pictures!

But good grief, NO financial statement.

Instead is the message:
"Should you wish to obtain the complete set of financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2008, along with the auditor's report, please contact our office at (306) 975-
0060." Not acceptable.

That can be my first request.

Get the damn financial statemnet on the website. That is what technology is for, folks.

And thanks for coming online, gusty.
Pars

[parsley]

Keep in mind the number of farms are dwindling. There are no new entrants overall, folks. So, the costs of existing programs continues to be annually downloaded on the survivors:

<p></p>
<p class="http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebecHistory/stats/NumberoffarmsinCanadabyprovinces.html">( Number of farms in 2002 and in 2008 )</a></strong></p>

Years.......2002...........2008
Manitoba----21070--------19,054
Sask--------50595--------44,329
Alberta-----53655--------49,431
...........125,320......112,814

12,506 less farmers are paying
Therefore, the remaining survivors are kinda like ducks in a slough, aren't they?

Sources of number used:
<p></p>
<p class="http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sdd12885/$FILE/census.pdf
">(2006 census Total Farms in Alberta...49,431
)</a></strong></p>

<p></p>
<p class="http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/statistics/pdf/2006agriculturalprofile.pdf">(2006 Census of Agriculture counted 19,054 census farms in Manitoba)</a></strong></p>

<p></p>
<p class="http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=fbd4a3a8-c237-41a7-99ec-02ffe9899724">( 2006 Census recorded 229 373 Canadian census farms)</a></strong></p>

The 2006 Census recorded 229 373 Canadian census farms. The number of farms is down 17 550 from 2001

Of the 229 373 Canadian farms, 19.3% were in Saskatchewan.

My point, scanning the broad view, isn't $0.50. My point is that the inflationary cost of programs that increasiningly dwindling mumbers of farmers are expected to pay is unsustainable. And not only paying for maintaining past programs, but funding new programs being introduced like oats,adds to the burgeoning
responsibility of the 112,814 remaining Western farms.

It's not only unfair,but unsustainable.

And that's my $0.02 worth.

Parsley

[parsley]

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sdd12885/$FILE/census.pdf

http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/statistics/pdf/2006agriculturalprofile.pdf

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sdd12885/$FILE/census.pdf

sorry trying again, pars

[gustgd]

As far as broadening checkoffs for research. I am in favour of a checkoff collected by Ethanol plants and passed along to a levy central. I don't know about creating a new commission have not really given it much thought. We don't need a whole new infrastructure but there are some compelling reasons.

So far not much work has been done on the industrial benefits of wheat. No one has a benifit to do so so it does not get done. As it stands the ethanol plants tend to use whatever is out there that they can buy.

As for your math difficulties, how will you ever learn if I solve your problems for you.

[charliep]

Can't argue with the decline in farm numbers but
not sure if farmer investment in R&D is a significant
factor.

A question back at you, what is the western
Canadian farmer investment in research and
development compared to our competitors
(Australia, Europe, United States)? Is our R&D
strategy enabling Canada to keep up in terms of
competitiveness with the other major exporting
countries in terms of productivity and consumer
traits development.

Challenge is what is the model for plant breeding
and bringing forward new varieties? Like canola
(close to 100 % private sector - you want access to
varieties/you pay)? Like cereals (public and farmer
investment)?

[parsley]

"don't know about creating a new commission have not really given it much thought"

I was NOT NOT NOT suggesting another commission. Good grief.

[parsley]

Well, if you want a race, set a goal of 257,271 new events for oats. Start with a runt crop. Should be able to grow a lot of them right smart.

The whole gamut. Sporting Novel traits and..., every combination of straight and ***** new miracles, well, use every stitch of your imagination for countless new varieties of oats.

There are no spending limits in the minds of those who want to pay for their labs and staff.

There are no spending limits for policy makers; it's not their money.

So,prudence seems not a consideration.

Western grains has nearly ten million at their disposal in 08 and it's not nearly enough for you Gusty.

Whatever will the sum be? Triple the funding by 2011, then. Legislate your requirements. Throw the farmers in jail who protest. You have a precedent to follow; it seems the mentality is learned.

It is so easy to sit back and spend someone else's money. And the farmers in Western Canada who make around $26,000 a year net, on average, according to statistcs, are supposed to pay yet more, and I guess they obviously want to pay until they grunt.

So be it.

I give up. LOL How can I possibly argue with such sound central planning genius that has the best of intentions for farmers in mind?

I can't even bloody add. Pars

[gustgd]

Western Grains will have more to invest in 2010, the railway money was not a given then and we farmers will have most of it now.

As far as spending farmers money I would bet there are hundreds of researchers across Canada who wonder why we are so tight with producers money? "They must think it comes out of their own pocket"

I heard a Saskatchewan stat the other day. In 2007 only 25000 farmers netted more than 50K this is out of over 44000 registered in the province.
I am there as a Wheat Grower rep. I represent those that make their living farming, the others seem to had made other arrangements.

Parsley I'll have to start calling you Saskfarmer4; all problems no solutions.
If you please answer charlies question who should we use as a model.
I'm not ready to concede that all that needs to be discovered, is discovered.

And I hope you will concede the point that if farmers don't put up some cash nobody else will either.

BTW triple funding would not make us equal to Australian investment. You may know they are not exactly a bastion of socialism.