WGRF

[charliep]

Will leave the discussion continue.

An interesting graph I have used a lot is one from an Informa Economics conference about a year ago. Shows world production and consumption of grain over the past 50 years and a projection of what needs to happen to meet demand over the next 15 years.

In 1961, the world produced and consumed about 700 million tonnes of grain. Today the world produces and consumes about 2.1 billion tonnes of grain. Technology that allowed production to keep up with consumption were the the introduction of hybrid seed/increased fertilizer use in the 1960's, improved weed control via increased herbicide use in the 1970's, seeding technology in the 1990's, biotech in the 2000's. By 2026, simple trend analysis suggests the world will be consuming 2.8 billion bushels of cereals. Very simple I know and lots of other things come into play but highlights the challenge.

It is also interesting to look at trends in yield growth by region and approach to funding research and plant breeding. Europe (private sector funded), Australia (GRDC plus seed levys), North America (mainly public breeding/research) and Former Soviet (mixed bag but mainly importing other regions technology/experince).

On with your discussion about what the future looks like in western Canada.

[charliep]

I should note that my comments on North America approach to R&D/plant breeding are wheat, oats and barley. Corn is a private sector funded model.

[parsley]

Governments advocate farmer funding so they can download their funding committments.

Listen carefully for the voices of government popping up, like bubbles in a soup pot, imbedding the idea into farmers that the starving masses worldwide, have to be fed. Just not by them.


Governments would do better to tell their starving masses, lolling about in moderate year round climates, to pick up a rake and a hoe. It's called work.

Hint: Food can't be grown virtually. Pars

[charliep]

[URL="http://www.gfo.ca/Media/News_Announcements/Home.aspx"]grain farmer of ontario[/URL]

[charliep]

Parsley

Reading way too much into my comments.

Simple question. Is research and developement including plant breeding an important part of any countries agricultural policy? Not looking for explanation. Just yes or no.

Once you answer that question, then it becomes who sets priorities, does, who pays, who regulates, etc. Will note the canola industry has answered many of these questions.

[parsley]

Yes.

Same answer as the forty four times you've asked it in the past.

Research-worth was never the issue. But you already know that from what I have repeatedly stated in the past.

The issue is the downloading.The focus. Researching for whose benefit? As you say, it "becomes who sets priorities, does, who pays, who regulates,"

Will farmers get stuck with the bill, again, paying for useless noodle centres in China that yield Western farmers nothing? Funding ever increasing PhD'ers? When is bloody enough, enough?

I find DA farmers know a wee wee bit about regulation and who pays and compulsion and priorities after 60 years of government regulated who-pays-bullshit.

Farmers noticed that CWB staff and corporate handling agreements were the main benefactors of the scheme.

We don't want top replace one piece of shate with another, do we now.

Should farmers anticipate Research companies panning for farmer-funding so they can continue to patent the profit-research with no ownership responsibility?

Ah, yes, charliep, here's the point where you can start asking if research is important,or if it will rain next Tuesday, or if the cat needs feeding.

Farmers have been heading down the road of overfunding and crossfunding, with too much of it not in farmers' interests. It's in government, companies, and institutional interests.

Regulation becomes a stick of no return, as greedy eyes eye up eventual-compulsory levies.

Grand schemers plan for themselves in the name of the common good, but too often, the only thing the kodiaks of the farmworld get...is the bill.

Farmgate income.

That's farmer focus.

[gustgd]

Farm gate income is always the focus. How to do more with less.

Farmer downloading is a concern that will likely happen more. $50 Billion dollar deficit federally.

One of you above made some comment about not wanting to add more to stocks as it lowers price. Supply/Demand.

Yet it is something I as a farmer have done since the beginning. Try and grow more bushels on the same piece of land....

I do see more private investment involvement in cereals. That's a good thing. The reason they will come is there will be a ROI. The challange now is to try and extract value from the 50 million farmers have put into public research in the past 20 years.

IMHO farmers funding research can only be optional once there are mechanisms to be in place to avoid free riders. ie: If you don`t want to pay, thats ok. Yet I will only carry you so far.

Another point was made on funding agronomy. Yes we do it all the time, through the endowment fund (railway money) Thing is most times you can`t patent agronomy. This is the reason most companies don`t do it. No way to get ROI.

Well I`ll post replies again tonight it looks like it will be a nice day and we are coming up on half done. Stay safe, we've had a few rain days off and are ready for another big run.

[tipsy]

Kodiak you sumed up my thoughts exactly. Only more eloquencely than I ever could.

[checking]

Endowment fund (railway money)? Are you rewriting history?

Okay, let's say your right, and the endowment fund is just the railway penalty money for overcharging farmers tens of millions on their freight (which I still consider to be a outright theft).

What fund was our collective freight overcharged farmers' money put into, if not the endowment fund?

If it was the endowment fund, then perhaps you should be honest about who provided this six times amount to that of the standard checkoff for that year, and say what portion was really railway penalty money.

I like honest straight talking directors. I don't believe you come close to fitting the bill.

[gustgd]

Wow checking great contribution.
If you want my honest straight forward opinion............ and then I erased it.

http://www.westerngrains.com/index.asp?id=13&gfx=&ts=0

Like farms and family businesses passed down through generations, the Endowment Fund has become a legacy for the WGRF. In 1981, $9 million was transferred from the discontinued Prairie Farm Assistance Act, becoming the base of the Endowment Fund. The principal of the Endowment Fund is invested and the earnings are used to fund a wide variety of crop research. Organizing the fund in this way looks to the future and long-term stability of crop research in Western Canada. To date, the Endowment Fund has supported a wealth of innovation across Western Canada and provided over $26 million in funding for over 230 projects across a number of different crop types.



In 2000, the Federal Government named WGRF under the Canada Transportation Act as the organization that would receive funds that were deemed to be in excess of the set revenue cap that governs each of the Canadian railways. Excess funds, plus a penalty of 15%, are transferred into WGRF's Endowment Fund. By funding a variety of research projects on all types of crops, the money benefits all crop producers in the Prairie region.



About $67 million was received by WGRF for the 2007-08 crop year in relation to the hopper car maintenance portion of the revenue cap formula. This one-time increase in resources available to the Endowment Fund significantly increases the funds available to WGRF to support research in the coming years. A key change to Endowment Fund Policy will be the addition of a new process for allocating a portion of the Endowment Fund. The current Letter of Intent (LOI) process, which has been in place for some time, will continue. However, a new process will be added alongside the LOI process and will see WGRF becoming more directive with respect to the research it funds. After receiving input of stakeholders, WGRF identified specific areas of research that are required from a producer perspective. Request for proposals (RFP) will then be issued inviting researchers to submit proposals to conduct the research. For more information on the WGRF Directed Research Program (DRP) please click on the appropriate below.


What's your version of history?

[parsley]

1. The folks who feign worry about free riders and about inequal paying, turn their blind eye to CWB licensing costs.


How many complaints have you read about about pedigreed seed growers getting export licenses from the CWB with no cost: the licensing cost is borne by the rest of the producers who cannot get the license! Ontario producers also get export liceses but the costs are paid by Western farmers.

Where are the moanings of inequal costs?

2. WTO/NAFTA costs were borne by the CWB, yet affected all of Canada. How much did the Quebec Wheat Marketing Board kick into the pot that pays the bill?

I must have missed those who moaned of unequal expenses.

My observation:

Realtime expenses bring silence.
otoh, Realtime funding-hunters screech and kick and lay on the floor, and want more money.

[gustgd]

@parsley

What are you talking about?
The WG'ers have been fighting the Monopoly from all angles since 1979.

Legistlation will be introduced this fall, to eliminate said Monopoly August 1st 2012.

If you don't like the way we went about influencing change at least give props for the results.

[parsley]

So now you're speaking as a WCWG, or still as an individual?

[parsley]

First of all you assume: "Farmer downloading is a concern that will likely happen more"

That's a defeatest's assumption. It will likely happen more only if marble un-alive balls represent us in leadership chairs.

Then you assume my comments were directed at the WCWGA. They were not.

And you do not address my observation:

Some folks repeatedly and publicly beg for funding money, on the basis of 'fairness of paying' INequality. They even dub their neighbors as freeloaders to make their case. It's an institutional tactic. Alienate. Intimidate.

However, I missed the repeated and public degrading that "EQUALITY paying' farmers have suffered for half a century.

Mind you, those full-paying farmers haven't been dubbed freeloaders by their neighbors, either.

Note: The socialists don't call you names unless they don't get their funding. Parsley