WGRF

[gustgd]

Certainty Needed for Wheat and Barley Check-Offs



Unless an alternative check-off system is implemented, WGRF stands to lose wheat and barley check-off revenue when the marketing role of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) changes August 1, 2012. Since 1995, the CWB has been the collection agent for the Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF) research check-offs.



WGRF has been investing almost $5 Million dollars annually into breeding research, $4 Million for wheat and $750,000 for barley. “WGRF is not an agricultural policy group and has no position in regard to the CWB marketing question,” noted Dr. Keith Degenhardt, WGRF Board Chair. “The mandate of WGRF is research and our interests are strictly in ensuring there is a check-off collection mechanism in place that will continue to provide WGRF with private producer funds to support the public wheat and barley breeding programs that put new and improved varieties into farmers’ fields.”



The WGRF Check-off Fund is the largest producer-supported fund for wheat and barley cultivar development in Canada. WGRF has supported the release of over 100 new varieties of wheat and barley, which have achieved widespread commercial success with producers. The majority of wheat and barley acres in western Canada are seeded to varieties supported by WGRF. “The benefits are clearly recognized and valued by producers and this is demonstrated by the fact that 95% of producers choose to contribute check-off even though they have an opportunity each and every year to opt out of contributing” said Garth Patterson, Executive Director WGRF.



In response to upcoming changes to the CWB, WGRF is requesting that the federal government, through existing or new legislation, establish a point of sale check-off system by August, 2012 to replace the current check-off system authorized under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. This alternative system would be similar in its fundamental features to the current check-offs for wheat and barley. The major difference is that the check-offs would be deducted by the commercial buyers at the point of producer sale with revenue then forwarded to WGRF, rather than the check-off being deducted by the CWB from final producer payments.



“Timing is critical to implementing an alternative check-off collection system for wheat and barley,” said Degenhardt. “A replacement check-off system needs to be ready for implementation before August 1, 2012. If the wheat and barley check-offs are allowed to lapse it could take several years to re-establish them.”



WGRF is a non-profit organization that is farmer funded and directed. WGRF supports crop research that directly benefits prairie farmers by investing producer funds in research through an Endowment Fund and the Wheat and Barley Check-off Funds.





Elements of the WGRF proposed alternative check-off plan:



Ü The purpose of the check-offs would be to provide funding to support wheat and barley variety research and development in order to introduce new and improved varieties to the marketplace for the economic benefit of Western producers.

Ü The check-offs would apply to wheat production in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and barley production in B.C., Saskatchewan and Manitoba (i.e., same production area as the current check-offs apply to).

Ü The check-offs would apply to wheat and barley sold for export and for domestic human consumption (mirrors coverage of the current check-offs). It is WGRF’s view however, that extension of the check-offs to include feed and industrial use wheat and barley sold domestically should be considered in the future.

Ü WGRF would continue as the organization administering the check-off funds on behalf of the Western wheat and barley producers who pay the check-offs.

Ü The amount of the check-offs would be the same as the current rates which are $0.30 per tonne for wheat and $0.50 per tonne for barley, however the rates could be increased after consultations with producers.

Ü Producers would be eligible on an annual basis for a refund of check-offs paid throughout the year by applying in writing to the WGRF.

Ü WGRF would report annually to producers, and would be responsible for reporting to the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, with financial statements and a report on research activities and achievements.

Ü The check-offs would be established under existing or new federal legislation.





-30-



For further information, contact:



Mike Espeseth

Communications Manager

Western Grains Research Foundation

communications@westerngrains.com

306-975-0365

[ajl]

Reality is that all gains from
technological advancements get passed on
to consumer. Why should the producer
invest in producing more which lowers
price? Producer research should focus on
increasing production efficiency and
lowering cost of production. Produce
similar or lower volumes at less cost
increasing margins.

[Choice2U]

I have no problem with research into markets (value added opportunities) as opposed to just lowering cost of production. If you increase the number of customers and thus demand for your product, your money has been well spent.

As long as the levy is kept low, the individual dollar cost is small but the combined dollar is significant. When the levy becomes too high, abuses can happen because the decisions makers don't have to be as frugal with my money.

[bucket]

What happened to that money from overcharging farmers on rail freight?

WGRF is NOT short of money or a way to extract it.

[parsley]

What kind of Federal Government administrated checkoff levy on PRODUCERS do Ontario and Quebec producers presently enjoy? Pars

[northfarmer]

Why not adopt the same model for reaearch and development and other functions that support the commodities such as Pulse and Canola. Provincial commisions of elected producers that then contribute to a national body to support the industry. Investments from producer refundable levies could be leveraged with other funding sources including government and the private sector. Look at all the good the CDC has done for pulse breeding, Pulse Canada and the great success of the Canola industry.

There is so much opportunity to do things diffrent and better after Aug 1 2012. Producers will want more than just the functions of WGRF to support wheat and barley at the national or western Candian level.

[wd9]

Yup make provincial cereal commissions and a Canadian Cereal Council, although i think the acronym might be confusing.

[parsley]

The pulse Communist model deductions in Saskatchewan are compulsory, are they not?
Lest we forget. Pulse

[parsley]

wd, tell us about the Ont/PQ legislated deductions. How do they work for the producers?

[Kodiak]

This is so typical. The 'leadership' of organizations such as WGRF and CIGI are all in favour of a legislated check-off. And why wouldn't they be? Easy, no effort, don't have to really prove yourself, guaranteed funding - in a direct deposit to your bank account every week. And while we're at it, make sure the refund mechanism is as awkward as possible to discourage disgruntled farmers from asking for their $$ back if they don't support where they are being spent. Let me emphasize, --- THEIR $$.
What a novel approach it would be to have these organizations prove their worth in the marketplace and actually earn their revenues because they are voluntarily and eagerly supported. Perhaps they could even commercialize some of their functions and derive some of their funding that way. But that might entail some original thought and some hard work. Accountability can be a difficult thing when it gets in the way of an easy guaranteed existence.
Legislated check-offs do not encourage prudent use of $$. And from what I am observing, can bring about a change in the people involved. Witness the Manitoba Canola Growers. A perfect example of an organization formed and once led by people with a vision and an ability to drive progress in a fledgling industry, to one now with a Board populated with people with another agenda and who love nothing more than collecting their expense accounts while promoting their political objectives.
The idea behind the check-offs when they were started was stable, easy, predictable funding so as to allow for a focus and concentrated effort in R&D and market development. The consequences aren't quite the same as the promises we got when the concept was being sold. Legitimacy is compromised. Discipline is weakened. Vision is blurred.
What a wasted opportunity to be imaginative and do things differently now that a change has to occur. While I might have, with some misgivings, once supported the check-off model for funding these kinds of initiatives and instutions, I no longer do. Accountability and vision suffer without the concurrent unpleasant burden of having to earn your daily bread.

[bluefargo]

gustgd

This is an important discussion which affects all growers.
- Has the board looked at the Australian model?
- Has there been any discussion of replacing the current royalty system with a pit levy based on variety similar to the way I understand the Australians do?

[northfarmer]

In Alberta pulse and canola deductions are refundabale, which I believe leads to more accountability. Cannot speak for other provinces on this matter.

[northfarmer]

end use royalties are an option as well, like they use in Australia, that warrant further investigation....I agree we need to be open minded about the structure in the future, lets build the best system

[gustgd]

To start off all thoughts here are mine and not positions of the Wheat Growers or WGRF. I post here to inform those farmers who pay the bills at WGRF and to get some feedback on positions we have taken.

Lots of good feedback thanks.

Yes we have looked at the Australian model, but it is a Cadillac model for farmers there is a % checkoff from all grain sales and and end point royalty
system where farmers declare varieties and funding flows back to breeding programs that are commercially successful. This model does leverage some money from Govt and industry but as I understand it Aussie. farmers "contribute 10:1 more than Canadian farmers.
Malleefarmer do I have this right?

As far as unelected board that is technically correct. But all seats are held by organizations and board members appointed from those same organizations. I feel that it's not my seat at the table it's the WG'ers and if they don't like the way I represent the organization I get yanked.
Along that same line of thought I don't claim to represent all farmers I try and speak for commercial farmers.
When talking to industry I tell them we are the ones you are advertising to. If you see a farmer in a magazine or hear a farmer on the radio I'll bet you it's a WG'er member. I won't be right all the time but I will be more often than not.
Any ideas on how to improve things or how to fund this *CCC* would be greatly appreciated.
Agree now is a great time to look at improving Western Canadian Ag. The Acts will be open. It`s all a matter of time and continuing research. it would be a great shame if good programs did not get funded because someone never thought about consequences.

[parsley]

Surely someone has the time to comment on PQ/Ont gov't legislated checkoffs.

Those who sit on checkoff boards, will surely be able to share with us, how the Rest of Canada enjoys their farmer paid for research funding and legislated checkoffs and compulsory legislated checkoffs.

Don't be shy. Parsley