proposed Alberta Wheat council Left meets Right

[FarmRanger]

<i>"If you want to argue that farmer paid
economists at the u of s provided useful CWB
studies"</i>

Ummm, no. I mean research or spending on
things that have a good chance of making me
money. An Internet connection and 15 minutes
of looking at relative grain prices will give me
more actual information than CWB commissioned
economic "studies".
Good one though. ;-)

[parsley]

Well, lone ranger, the proposed wheat council in
Alberta may provide you with a few interesting
surprises, then. Ask yourself:
1. Did the core creators of the proposed AB
Wheat Council advocate the Richard Gray et.al
type economic studies, as useful to farmers in
general? I know they were useful to the political
ideology of the single deskers.
2. Will the creation of the Wheat Council actually
lead to the creation of a single desk marketing
board for wheat? After all, the only barrier
between provincial marketing boards for wheat
and barley was the CWB. After all, the DA
provinces signed away their enabling legislation
to allow the CWB to operate under Trade and
Commerce and thus stymie exporting by means
of regulation.
With the CWB legislation gone, the provinces are
legislatively able to set up provincial marketing boards.
Whose nose can smell a monopoly committee a
mile away? Set up the committee, then the
council, then the marketing agency, then the
monopoly with a willing bleeding heart female
premier. Voila! Will Alberta proudly announce the
west's first provincial compulsory wheat
marketing board? What a coup for the
monopolists! (rocky, I AM mean....lol)
Choke on your coffee, boys. Pars

[parsley]

Checking, You have already thought this one
through. The monopolists may well try to create
a sask wheat marketing board as well, and hope
Wall loses the election, so don't forget to vote.
lol Pars

[wd9]

A little financial fact always seems to be missed or misunderstood in todays economic and political environment. If our industry doesn't throw in a few pennies and show some commitment the government will not throw in the 20's for anything. The matching is crazy high and hugely beneficial to us as farmers but nothing happens if we do nothing.

The question for gusty as you move ahead for this cereals thing is how much of the old paradigms do you want to bring along to execute a lean mean progressive commission that benefits farmers for the future. I remember the talk in 2000 with barley commission even at that time the forward thinking directors felt the single commodity commission concept had run its course and was time to trim the top heavy directorship model of endless 'groups' to one of good governance and leadership and letting the staff make it happen.

[parsley]

On the contrary I understand the financial facts
all too well You don't.

The fact is the government has to borrow money
to match farmers 'money, most of which is
borrowed.

You are advocating continuing living beyond
one's means in volatile financial climate. Is that indicative of:
Irresponsibility
Vested interest
Entitlement syndrome or
Lacking financial management

Or a combination of the above

Naturally if you work for the govt your job is to
download as much cost on farmers as you can.

If you get cheques from industry, your job is to
suck as much money from govt as you can by
coaxing/manipulating matching contributions from
farmers, damn the cost.

If you are a clear thinking farmer, you will
exercise some sense of fiscal restraint during the
next few years. Pars

[FarmRanger]

Hopefully after August 1, 2012 the stake shall be
driven through heart of the state trading
monopsony forever, and we can get farmers
working together to benefit the industry. I am
thinking that nobody is going to want to resurrect
the single desk vampire after that, especially in
Alberta. Then we can hopefully make better use
of matching funds that can be directed to uses
that benefit grain farmers.

[parsley]

Will the working wheat committee In Alta have
the same goals as are your goals, ranger? Do
you really even know what their goals are? Goals
come from values. Action is most often tethered
to goals. And action is often justified by
consultation. "Some of you have opinions I value"

Some

Never forget to ask who's goals. Industries?
Governments? Self-interest? Institutions?
Farmers ?
They don't necessarily have the same goals as
farmers have learned the hard way.

Should LEADERSHIP farmers can TRUST in to
work on behalf of FARMERS be the #1 goal of
farmers?

Who do you trust in. A big big question, isn't it.
Pars

[gustgd]

No question that staff do most of the work. Question is who is watching the staff? That is the job of the manager, and directors are to watch the manager.

We've all seen examples of staff making decisions that may not have been made if management was on top of things.

It's the same age old problem of governance, when you have thousands of farmers paying the bills. How to accommodate most, while getting value for money. At the same time you have the Parsley's and her arguments. On the other end of the spectrum the true socialists and theirs.

More questions than answers.

[charliep]

Just curious as to what GRDC does right in Australia? What the canola does
right in Canada (provincial commissions and Canola Councils)? Growers
seem to accept these organizations I assume because they value in their
activities.

Perhaps somewhat to wd9 questions, why provincial organizations? Why not
a beefed up Western Grain Research Foundation that reflects the needs of
cereals? My understanding no federal legislation to do this. Also provincial
jurisdiction and therefore need for agreement.

Also may need to separate plant breeding (very expensive/need to bring
resources together) from other issues like agronomics. Alberta
Conservation and Tillage Society and the Applied Research Associations here
do good work based on voluntary farmer participation. Parsley indicates
organics have R&D components although I assume overall industry issues
like fusarium, ergot, rust, etc. impact them just like everyone else.

[parsley]

Multiply the number of people in your family by
$36,898.23. That is what you owe as a
Canadian on the public debt

Whether you view Canada from your right eye, or
your left eye, you would have to be blind, or
pretend to be blind, to not see that spending
cannot continue.

To refuse to cut back on spending in every sector of agriculture, including research budgeting, is
irresponsible. We have too much fat.

Fiscal responsibility begins with each decision we
make; a whole swack of farm leaders need to
reset their fiscal spending benchmarks. And it will
be difficult because many of them are quite sure
they were born entitled Pars