Fusarium

[TOM4CWB]

bep

Alberta has the right to control disease and pests within our borders, there is a question to how bad corn fusarium infection spread is because corn has been imported for half a century.

If Alberta were to restrict imports, then a large home grown market would be available for Alberta grown feed wheat and barley instead of imports from Sask and Manitoba.

Feeders in Alberta can pay a premium, however they must have the ability to buy competitively or a bankrupt feeding industry will result!

Then we won't have a feed market.

It will be interesting to see how the AB Ag dept implements this!

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

I don't get the market response on the feed barley Lethbridge contract falling $6.00/t on fusarium restricted movement from Sask and Manitoba.

Shouldn't feed barley prices rise if there is going to be less supply into this Lethbridge futures contract next fall???

[rain]

Tom I don't think any thing has been announced yet has it? This fusarium legilstation change is not very well known yet. 2 out of 3 feedmills in Calgary new nothing about it.

I think barley futures crashed on the stats can forecast for 8% increase in barley acres.

[charliep]

Tom4cwb

I agree with Rain. There have been lots of other things in the market other than just the fusarium issue (eg. slack demand as feedlots don't bother to replace animals, lots of panicky barley producers who by passed good prices this winter only to watch prices headed down, feedlots who have booked US corn into the summer, expectations for larger barley acres, better moisture/a potentially later spring, a major drop in new crop CWB pool return outlooks for both malt and feed, etc. etc. etc. - lots indications that are not optismistic for barley).

It will have impact on western barley futures longer term. I won't get into the details of the new other than highlighting testing/certification will be at the seed level.

An example I think of in thinking of this is to compare it to AIDS. You have people who don't have any expression of the disease but are still carriers (not a topic for a Sunday afternoon but why you tell your teenage kids to use condoms). The testing of grain will be at this level. You have people who get very sick from the AIDS because of immune deficiency syndome - they become very sick because their bodies are not able to handle other diseases. The fusarium equivalent is fusarium head blight and high levels of vomotoxin (not healthy for humans or hogs at low levels/cattle at higher levels).

What impact on futures? Presence of the disease is not in the current contracts specifications. The implication is that grain could be delivered on the contract from outside Alberta which is acceptable to the contract but couldn't be brought into Alberta. My thoughts are that this will likely push futures prices lower (make sure delivery isn't an alternative). Basis is the wild card I don't have a handle on. Alberta basis will likely narrow/go to a premium to futures with Lethbridge plus premium for zero fusarium a reality.

Others thoughts.

[charliep]

Ianben

I don't know if you are tuned into this thread but I am interest in how farmers in the UK handle this disease?

Charlie

[rain]

Charlie let me get this straight. You think barley futures will get pushed down because of the threat of delivery of contaminated grain, even though delivery can not be made becasue of contamination?

[charliep]

Rain

Yes - keeping in mind one is delivery on a futures contract (having someone staying short into a futures month and delivering against the contract) and the other is the ability to physically move this grain into Alta (cash market). Your thoughts.

This is only one of the factors (maybe a minor one) for the most recent drop in prices.

[rain]

OK I assume you are looking at it that the short does not have to worry about anyone taking delivery because no one wants to take the contract because it is contaminated.
But who would buy the contract for the short to get out of his postition?.

[charliep]

My assumption is there will be more incentive for the short to deliver with the long scrambling to get out of the contract.

The point to be made is there will be more uncertainty around this contract and this needs to be considered in both hedging programs and basis by all members of the industry.

Implications are I would tend to use futures to hedge the sell side (barley producer) and let the smoke clear a little more before I booked basis (particularly if I was in Alberta/felt comfortable that I could hit the quality parameters in SK./MB.). The program creates more uncertainty as a hedger on the buy side so am not so sure what I would do with either futures or basis. Alberta buyers will potentially have to include a new clause in their contract will commits the seller to providing the necessary documents indicating the grain is fusarium graminearium free.

[rain]

How does the short get out if know one buys.

[charliep]

On any futures transaction, there was both a buyer and seller. My assumption (good, bad or indifferent) is there will be more tension on the buy side when time comes to lift the hedge. A feed lot operator will for sure want to lift the hedge or risk in getting delivered on in an out of position/getting grain delivered that won't meet Alberta specs (this tension exists in the current market). To lift their hedge, they will have to sell futures. You are right when there are more sellers than buyers, prices come down.

[rain]

I am not sure at this point how many hedgers would get into this market as they become more aware of what the supposed reason for the futures tanking. So for the sake of arguement barley futures are dropping solely on the fusarium issue. I do not think neither you or I would Hedge (buy) these levels as a hedge today.

Some say the Winnipeg Wheat futures is a dog because fusarium is in the contract. If this is so risk is to the buyer. If fusarium can not be delivered into Alberta would the risk not be to the seller.