CWB: Have your Say, Sign Your Way

[parsley]

Instead of talking to ourselves, dip your nib into your red ink (or black ink,as the case may be),begin with Dear Editor, comment on the link below, and press send.

Quit wringing your hands, and tell your kids. "Look what I wrote this morning."

<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/fair%2Bdeal%2Bwheat/4135874/story.html&ct=ga&cad=CAcQARgAIAAoATAAOABA463f6QRIA VAAWABiBWVuLVVT&cd=zlRJ_5UXUiM&usg=AFQjCNFYLo9qe4s 9ubw8aUzuQTeZzslAsA"](you might want to remind Oberg the CWB is fed gov't legislation)[/URL]</strong></p>

198 Letters to the E's will precipitate some interest, won't it. And it WILL annoy the Bored employees. Pars

[parsley]

<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://www.discovermoosejaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15676&It emid=403"](Lowgrade Seller)[/URL]</strong></p>

[parsley]

This is what a gold plated handling agreement with the CWB will do:

"Viterra Announces Strong 2010 and Q4 Earnings
Posted on: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:13:58 EST

Symbols: VTRAF
Winnipeg, MB, Jan. 19, 2011 (CNS Canada), Jan 19, 2011 (Commodity News Service Canada, Inc. via COMTEX) --
Canadian agricultural company Viterra Inc. saw strong financial results in the quarter and year ended October 31, 2010, the company announced Wednesday, January 19. The increase was driven by Viterra Australia's operations which were acquired in September 2009, according to the release. Strong fourth quarter fertilizer sales and contributions from new pasta and oat processing businesses also helped improve the company's bottom line.
Net earnings for the year were up 28% to C$145 million compared to C$113 million in 2009, according to the release. Earnings per share were C$0.39 per share in fiscal 2010 compared to C$0.45 per share in fiscal 2009 as the weighted average number of shares increased by 120 million shares year- over-year.
For the year ended October 31, 2010, Viterra's consolidated sales and other operating revenues reached C$8.3 billion, increasing C$1.6 billion or 24% from fiscal 2009. The increase was mainly attributable to Viterra Australia's operations that contributed C$2.3 billion to revenues in fiscal 2010 and to new food processing contributions. Lower volumes and commodity prices in the company's North American grain handling operations partially offset this increase, said the release.
The Company generated cash flow provided by operations in fiscal 2010 of C$361 million or C$0.97 per share up from C$223 million or C$0.89 per share in fiscal 2009. Free cash flow was C$239 million compared to C$139 million in fiscal 2009, said the release.
"Agriculture continues to be at the forefront of the global economy," Mayo Schmidt, Viterra's President and Chief Executive Officer in the release. "Recently, flooding in parts of Australia, droughts in Argentina and potential crop damaging frost in Europe has tightened supply and pushed commodity prices up, allowing them to return from the soft pricing environment experienced during the last two years. Viterra is ideally situated with a strong leadership position in origination from both North America and South Australia. In fact, South Australia is currently harvesting what is expected to be a record setting crop.
Viterra also successfully integrated three major acquisitions during fiscal 2010, said the release.
"We are very pleased with our acquisitions of Dakota Growers and 21st Century," said Schmidt. "These new pasta and oat processing businesses are highly accretive and provide Viterra with stable predictable earnings, which we expect to generate higher returns for shareholders."
Looking ahead, Viterra anticipates Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) receipts for the six major grains in Western Canada to be in the 30.0 million tonne range for fiscal 2011, slightly lower than the approximately 32.0 million tonnes that is typically available, said the release.
The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has set its preliminary export target for wheat and barley out of Canada at 17.4 million tonnes for the upcoming crop year, which is approximately 1 million tonnes lower than the past year. Demand for open market grains is expected to remain strong, particularly out of the Asia-Pacific region. As well, Viterra intends to expand its handle of both bulk and containerized pulse crops throughout fiscal 2011, according to the release.
For Viterra's South Australia grain handling operations, the company expects shipments to continue with momentum in fiscal 2011, given production issues in other grain growing regions of the world and improved commodity pricing. As well, Viterra's management currently estimates receivals for this business, which primarily occur in the first quarter of the fiscal year, to be about 8.5 to 9.0 million tonnes, said the release. This is a significant increase over the prior year, assuming that farmers are able to continue to successfully harvest the predicted record crop.
Viterra currently estimates that its global pipeline margin per tonne for fiscal 2011 will be in the range of C$33 to C$36 per tonne, up from its fiscal 2010 guidance of C$30 to C$33 per tonne. The increase reflects a full year of gross profit contributions expected from its International Grain group, which is now fully established"

[parsley]

Remember those hazy, shady, shady days of Liberals?
<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=13358"](An image that makes you want to buy lowgrade wheat)[/URL]</strong></p>

Agriculture equals money. Pars

[Lifer]

Pars,

When Oberg writes the following I read that he knows that grain marketing is governed by federal legislation.

"I would suggest to Norris that Prairie farmers, not politicians in Ottawa, should be the ones to determine the future of grain marketing on the Prairies"

Sounds to me a bit strong to say that praire farmers should be the ones to determine the future of grain marketing. Granted farmers should have more input then they currently have but grain marketing affects more of the population than just farmers.

[parsley]

You hit the conundrum, lifer.

Crowd A: The CWB claim the CWB is being run by farmers.

or
Crowd B: The CWB claim the CWB is being run by politicians.

CWB speaks with forked tongue? Pars

[Lifer]

Maybe and a lot of people speak with forked tongue.

What is being said and what is reality are too often different.

What is Mr. Oberg really up to?

[lepoubelle]

My experience .

I used to be a dairy farmer in the UK when we had the Milk Marketing Board (MMB) , like the CWB but for all milk sales . The MMB was top heavy with inneficient staff and becoming very unpopular with dairy farmers . They got rid of some head office staff and started making changes to how farmers could sell their milk . Then Maggie Thatcher came along as Prime Minister and ended the MMB , essentially allowing dairy farmers to sell their milk to the highest bidder .Perhaps unsurprisingly , milk buyers bid up the price to get supply . Within 2 years of this event I was selling milk for 50% more . The principal milk buyers then amalgamated/got bought out so that in another 2 or 3 years we were down to only 4 major buyers . 3 years later , surprise ,surprise , I was having 25% less than the starting point for my milk . In 1999 I pulled the plug , sold the cows , quota and farm and moved to Saskatchewan to grain farm .
While I appreciate that there are issues with the CWB , I believe we should be careful what we wish for .
Incidentally , when I left UK in 2000 there were about 30000 dairy farmers and UK was roughly self sufficient in milk supply . Today I believe there are less thn 20000 dairy farmers and UK has to import milk . Those that I still know have had 10 rough years , despite diversification in any imaginable direction .
There are too many parallels with that experience for me to support any fundamental changes to the CWB .
Even the smart-ass dairy farmers with herds close to a major dairy facility who thought they were bombproof and wholeheartedly supported the end of MMB have had to get rid of herds .
Thanks .
Think about it .

[parsley]

Interesting comments.

North Korea must be very attractive to you with a command control government run system. Or China.

Chinese government has been very diligent and forceful about central planning rural China. Unfortunately, incomes were approx $200 per year.

I am rather surprised you chose neither country to set up in as both enable the kind of system you seek!

You are not a dairy farmer in Canada, and instead chose grain? Odd. Pars

[bucket]

lepoubelle


I, for one do not believe the parallel between a MMB and the CWB.

The biggest difference is, if I am not mistaken, milk goes bad fairly quickly?

Grain can sit in the bin for years as the cwb has proven with my durum.



An open market would allow farmers to be pricing grain well into 2012.

And I would assume you could have done that as well. Since you knew your production, you could pick a contract for milk that would have been profitable.

It seems you like to make sure you do no better than your neighbor and your neighbor does no better than you.