Drifts on the Doorsteps

[JDGreen]

The wheat board would not survive. Its not competitive as a monopoly let alone in an open market environment. A dual market is a dream.

[btjadenlepp]

stubblejumper - do you seriously think
that consulting fees are a major driver
behind this debate? trust me, wheat board
policy work doesn't pay near enough to
warrant the heartache.

[btjadenlepp]

dmlfarmer: if it's all about listening and
responding, a credible argument please for
the current voter eligibility
requirements. the cwb speaks out of both
sides of its mouth on this issue - a
'shareholder corporation'? the spirit of
the legislation on governance is vague at
best.

www.farmlinksolutions.ca

[jdepape]

stubblejumper:
the answer to your question is....

nobody.


"Try not to become a man of success but rather try to become a man of value." ~Albert Einstein

[parsley]

"The wheat board would not survive"

Think about what you say Greenie!

The CWB was once the sole Canadian marketer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ontario deserted them!
Quenec deserted them!

Has the CWB survived?

Lawsey. Pars

[parsley]

Did you send DePape a note?
I did
He deserves one.

From: parsleyXXXXX
Sent: October-24-10 1:24 PM
To: cwb@depape.ca
Subject: webpage


Good Morning John,

I took some time this morning to peruse your webpage and wanted to tell you what a fine collection or information you have presented, ;and useful to farmers. Hopefully, it will fire up the free market troops, to take out a pen and make an X; a tiring daunting task for those with an adversion to hard work.

Hope you are well.
Woith kindness and Admiration,
My Best,
Parsley

[cityguy]

The OWB is effectively a non-participant in the marketing of Ontario wheat and it's safe to say that basically all Ontario farmers are OK with that. The little bit of wheat that is grown in Quebec is mandated to be sold through the Regie de something (my french is terrible) and I can't imagine that all Quebec farmers are Ok with that, but that's how they "democratically" voted.

I haven't a clue what the rules and regs are with regards to exporting seed wheat and barley but suspect that the volumes are fairly small (less than 100,000 tonnes ???). You tell me.

I'd also guess that the majority of exported feed wheat and feed barley is done through the regular channels (CWB direct or through AE's) and very little is done as manufactured feed. Stand to be corrected so point me to the stats/numbers that would suggest otherwise. charliep can act as arbitrator on this one.

Long story short, maybe a voluntary CWB survives in an open market, maybe it doesn't, but that's the beauty of an open market. But "dual" it ain't and I don't think the choice people did to rely on that sort of weasel words.

[dmlfarmer]

Thanks Kodiak for bringing up the task force report. I am very familar with it and refer everyone to page 10 section 2 "what is marketing choice." Specifically: "“Marketing Choice” is a better term to describe the new environment than “dual
marketing”. The latter term implies to some that the existing marketing approach (a CWB with
monopoly powers) could co-exist with an open market approach. This is not possible."

This is my point. Yet people (now jdepape) still insist that a dual market can work Without a monopoly you have an open market. And whenever I hear someone say dual market I ask how it would work. No one has ever been able to describe anything other than an open market to me. I am still seeking an answer.

And you last question is basically the same as my first question to jdepape. Why is the CWB monopoly not working. Because I think we can agree if the CWB is not working as a monopoly chances are it will never be able to compete in an open market; as Ontario and Australia have discovered.

[parsley]

2000 googled handy:

Source: Animal Nutrition Association of Canada. 2000.


•Total sales represent over CDN$3.5 billion (global shipments of livestock and poultry feed products, excluding pet food)
•Approximately 8800 people employed by industry in manufacturing units

•Estimated total complete feed equivalent required to feed all livestock and poultry in Canada is 21 to 23 million metric tonnes

•Based on complete feed equivalent, requirements by volume for various species are:

◦Hog 36%

◦Beef 29%

◦Dairy 18%

◦Poultry 14%

◦Other 3%

•Approximately 50% of the overall complete feed equivalent volume required to feed all livestock and poultry in Canada is manufactured on non-commercial on-farm mixing establishments

•Swine, dairy and poultry feeds account for approximately 85% of the complete feeds manufactured and sold by commercial manufacturers in Canada

•There are an estimated 520 commercial feed manufacturing establishments in Canada:

◦Atlantic 5%

◦Quebec 34%

◦Ontario 33%

◦Prairies 23%

◦British Columbia 5%

•The industry relies on imports from the United States, Europe and Asia for the majority of the high value single micro-ingredients, i.e. vitamins, trace minerals, amino acids, animal health pharmaceuticals and other micro feed additives, used in most feed products as there is virtually no vitamin production in Canada and the pharmaceutical fine chemical industry is limited.

•Exports into the United States are primarily confined to cross-border movement of complete feeds and originate mainly in eastern Canada from Ontario and Quebec and in the west primarily from Alberta. Exports of value added specialty products such as milk replacers, mink and fox feeds, horse feeds and some specialty micro-premixes, are expanding in Mexico, Latin America, South America, Europe and Asia.

•The Canadian feed industry is comprised of establishments that vary in size and manufacturing capacity from relatively small mills to large sophisticated and vertically integrated operations. Annual sales of operations vary from $1 million to over $130 million.

[gustgd]

First of all it's Asinine that we are forced to vote on private property.

Second
Since Goodales Liberals are making us vote on property who are we calling farmers? Wayne Easter himself told me that the 40 tonne limit is reasonable. Why has it not passed and we could get paid sooner.

dmlfarmer I want to see the CWB's plan for barley they obviously have one after 2007. They were not going to close the doors, and flying by the seat of their pants is probably not it.

[gustgd]

Another NFU talking point is that they want to see more farmer control on the Board. They are floating Goodale`s plan to limit govt control by having the BOD appoint their own experts to sit at the table.

Point is that they forget what has happened in the past and how many good qualified directors have quit over all the BS politics and the lefty insatiable desire to meddle in day to day affairs.

What would stop them from appointing Stewart Wells as their Agricultural policy advisers

He obviously has the credentials they are looking for.
Tongue planted firmly in cheek

As long as tax payers are on the hook for this shit show the Govt will have say to protect the purse.
Let us free and you can appoint any one you want.
OR better yet
Show me how you plan to earn my business, by making me more money and reducing not adding to my marketing stress.
Let me vote on how much business I may add to your business and then it may work.

All most done ranting, but as long as the monopoly is as dysfunctional as it is you will NOT attract the directors WE need most.

I`m out.

[jdepape]

Dmlfarmer:

OK - here goes. Sorry for the length.

Re China malt – re-read my comment. The import tariff on malt doesn’t play into this at all. China expanded their malt capacity just to export it. Malt houses were built on the coast to facilitate the acceptance of foreign barley and the EXPORT of malt to other countries in South East Asia. My point was that we (Canada) should be exporting more malt to that region.

Your point on the shifts in demand growth is correct but, to put my comments in context, you have to go back to 2006-07, the year I was talking about – the year when the CWB met with Ritz and the malt companies said they wouldn’t invest in Canada. Back then, it was estimated that the world was short about 500,000 tonnes of malt capacity. These multinational companies were deciding at the time where in the world the new capacity would be built. Canada was a perfect location but in their approach to location selection, these companies chose an ABC approach – Anywhere But Canada. Because of the single desk – which is what they told the CWB at the time.

I didn’t ignore the fact that capacity has been added elsewhere. Much of it was added after 2007.

Sorry to trouble you with my use of the term “democratically” – I didn’t mean anything by it other than to describe an approach to an issue where everyone has equal input. Trust me - it’s applicable here.

I guess where I’d agree with you is democracy would be applied if their stated wishes were implemented. As it is, the CWB has left the majority of farmers impotent on that particular question.

I understand your comment about how farmers used the election of directors as a proxy for a vote on the “single desk” issue, but I don’t agree with that conclusion. In the last directors election I was a scrutineer – monitoring the handling of the ballots by MNP. Time and time again I saw ballots that selected a strong “single desk” candidate as the #1 choice and a strong “dual market” candidate as the #2 choice (or the other way around). If that election was a vote on the single desk issue, it didn’t show up on the ballots.

To your questions: Why does the CWB not work? What changes would have to be made to or in the CWB so Canadian farmers would benefit from collectively negotiating?

This is a big one. I’ll give you a little teaser here and write it up later as a full commentary later.
- The CWB does not have a monopoly, yet it acts like it does. (Yes, if a buyer wants Canadian wheat, it must go to the CWB, but that doesn’t give them a monopoly. But nobody NEEDS Canadian wheat, so the CWB competes. Usually on price.)
- The CWB does not have market clout, yet it acts like it does. (4% of global production and 14% of world trade does not fit with the definition of “market clout”.)
- On barley, the CWB is a bit player, handling only 20% of the crop – if that.
- On durum – quite frankly I’m dismayed.

To your question: how do you see the dual market working?

Another biggy. I won’t comment on AWB directly but think of this. So often we automatically assume that the entity (this time it’s AWB, another time it’s Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board) couldn’t survive because it didn’t have its market power anymore.

I look at it the other way. If the AWB shrank, maybe it shrank to a size equal to the size of the “market” for the service it was offering. There’s nothing saying that it has to be everything to everyone.

In western Canada we’ve seen about 40% of farmers (or less) favour the single desk. For arguments sake, let’s assume these 40% represent 15% of the barley production and we go to a dual market, and this 40% continue to work with the CWB. It wouldn’t be surprising at all if the CWB handled 15% of the barley. In fact, it wouldn’t be a sign of failure, rather an indication of the demand for its services.

Actually, I think the market share of the CWB in a dual market would be even smaller. Take a look at my blog:
<a href=http://cwbmonitor.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-barley.html>Why Barley?</a>

(Hope that worked...)

As for a plan, again, I’ll leave that for another time. (And yes, I do have ideas of how it will work. But I’ve written far too much already here.)

On your question “How do I know an open market supporter also won't override farmer's interest simply because of ideology?”

I guess you don’t. But I just think that the evidence is so overwhelming that the single desk is not creating wealth, why would getting rid of it be overriding a farmer’s interest?