checkoffs opt out question?

[gustgd]

Per
You say the checkoff is being wasted at WGRF?
Where?
What would you like to see the money spent on?
How can the situation be made better?

Not trying to put you on the spot but if you or anyone have any ideas on how to make WGRF better,drop me a line
gustgd@sasktel.net
or post it here

neveragain good info on Mb sunflowers thanks
FYI
WGRF rates are set buy the Federal Minister of Agriculture
Wheat is at .30 cents/tonne
Barley at .50cents/tonne

[charliep]

Way off the topic of voluntary versus compulsory checkoffs but I found
articles in this week's western producer (April 29) that highlight why this
discussion is important.

Page 3 - Auditor General report highlighting the lack of funding and
planning in public research.

Page 10 - Editorial on the emergence of new players in the world wheat
market and the impact on Canada's competitiveness.

Page 17 - Tightening of standards around storage molds (ochratoxin A).

Research, development and commercial are critical to western Canada
remaining competitive. The question then is who does, who pays and who
benefits.

[wd9]

Parsely, are you saying a farmer cannot afford like canola a 1 dollar on a 380 dollar per tonne checkoff?

If that dollar is not spent, research and marketing programs do not happen. The government has changed and if the industry doesn't put up the money the funding does not happen and it all stops. Many times the money is matched 20 to 30 times, but not a dime is spent if the industry doesn't come to the table with commitment. Familiarize yourself with how the system works.

[dmlfarmer]

How would you handle two farmers living in same RM with same name. One supports checkoffs, other requests refunds. Putting that name on a list will "shame" both producers and open up the checkoff organization to a host of problems including the potential of a lawsuit by a farmer who supports the checkoff but finds his name on your list.

Second problem is Freedom of Information laws found in many provinces. FOIP lawyers would have a fieldday with any organization trying to use personal information to create a shame list.

Third, you are freely giving people who disagree with an organization's policy or practices a soapbox on which to preach the negatives of the organization. Every time the list is published naysayers of an organization will be clearly identified for access by media etc.

While may only cost a $1000 to set up the real costs of potential lawsuits, fighting FOIP battles, and negative publicity would likely make this the most costly non research program a checkoff organization would ever undertake.

[gustgd]

DMLfarmer not saying that I have the perfect answer, and privacy is definitely a concern.
Consider the proposal a call to action, to start to think about how research is funded. I am open to counter proposals.
If anyone out there thinks that the GRDC model is not being looked at. THIS IS YOUR WAKE UP CALL!!
For those of you that want to tie this into socialism and the CWB, maybe the Aussies are as far ahead of us on research funding as they are on cereal marketing?? I don't know, but at least I'm thinking about it.

[wmoebis]

It seems to me that there is a lot more value in all grain after it leaves the farm gate. Maybe the R&D should be funded in whole from top down instead of bottom up. They tell us what they want us to grow and they benefit the most. At least my returns tell me that is the fact. They can pass the cost on to consumer for better product.

[gustgd]

wmoebis see the wd9 comment on money being matched 20:30 X If farmers don't participate don't be surprised if we get results we don't like.

I'd suggest rereading his whole post.

[checking]

Did our 60-70 million freight overcharge (you'll have the exact number) get matched 20:30 Xs. That was a significant checkoff. What did you do with our money, Mr. G?

[parsley]

What I can't figure out about you gusty, is why somebody that looks like Brad Pitt, also talks and writes and makes political statements like Hugo Chávez?

[parsley]

Excerpt from Standing Committee of Agriculture Proceedings, Ottawa, Ontario, May 1, 2014

Farmer Ben: "You said only $1.00 a tonne on canola in 2010!"

wd9: "You are correct. The checkoff amount I wholey approved of began at $1.00 on canola and I agree it is now $16.00 a tonne on each and every crop commodity due to inflation, but how else will research projects be continued and completed? Do you want them to stop dead?"

Farmer Ben: "I am hardly making any profit now. But to put a research levy on my bales will put me out of the cow calf business."

wd9: "Times have changed. It is a matter of fairness. The cattlemen are all being freeloaders expecting other farmers to pay for commodity research"

Farmer Ben: "Look, Mr. Chairman,if this bale checkoff plus wild pasture area checkoff is made compulsory the cow calf guys are done like dinner."

wd9: "As I suggested, Farmer Ben, I am working hard to have all the checkoffs in Western Canada put under one umbrella to save farmers money. One official government department. I'v spent considerable time studying APAS in Saskatchewan. APAS is municipality based. My proposal, DAACCA, is Designated Area based."

Chairman: "On that note, let's break right now, and then after lunch, as Designated Area Research Funding Chairman, wd9 can bring us up to speed on all the checkoff research projects that have been completed in the last four years, with the phenomenal number of scientists now employed in Ontario due to the grains checkoff. Then we'll meet with the focus group on wd9's new Designated Area Acre and Commodity Checkoff Amalgamation proposal. Quite a mouthful. DAACCA "

(laugh)(all titter and twitter)

"He's been working closely with the CWB and CIGI on it. Be back at 14:00 hours?"

"Adjourned."
(bang goes the gavel)

[checking]

I envision the day where all this stored checkoff money sitting in bins will be demanded to be paid upfront by Mr G's group. It will be looked upon as it isn't fair that those forced to sell grain at poor prices to meet loan payments pay their checkoffs while others are able to delay sales.

Write this down MR. G., as it's your precedence. It's being done by the federal government on producing mineral rights. Ofcourse, you have to die first for it to come into effect. Perhaps WGRF can do some research to speed that part up!!

[dave4441]

Agriculture is a business, competes with other suppliers. Lowest price or highest value gets the business. Business must be innovative and research is required to be innovative. Who pays for the research without a levy Parsley? Hugo Chavez? Give me a break. A industry that, as a primary producer of raw goods, that beleives an investment in research, to further their industry is socialism is so far removed from reality of actual business that it is unbeleivable. Get out of the house. Do you think the oil industry, believes that research into production techniques, which just increase the supply of oil and decrease the price, are avoiding investments in their production practices? Or uranium, or coal, or any producer of any good?

Gustd-i do not have the answers to your question. When growers state that they do not see value in a particular levy (and if 50 cents/MT makes or breaks you operation there is another discussion that needs to take place) it is because they generally have not a clue what their levy is used for. How many projects have been funded for zero-till research from different organizations and how many of those reccomendations are used today? We use the research results paid for with levies and we do not even know where that info comes from. A chem rep or equipment dealer passes the info on, and it shapes our business and we do not even know it. The bigger problem is communication of research results, and you could spend half the dollars from an organization, trying to communicate these results and people would still say they do not know what value is being brought from the levy. Please excuse the rant, but i am tired of hearing about people not knowing what levies do for them, because they take so little interest in it and do not take the time to be informed.