Expropriation of farmers’ assets un-Canadian

[gregpet]

[URL="http://www.agrimoney.com/news/soy-crushers-struggle-while-canola-peers-thrive--3447.html"]Here is your answer[/URL]

Now answer why the new crop price of wheat is within pennies in Canada and the US?

[chuckChuck]

Has anybody seen a study looking at canola and soybean crushing margins and doing a comparison?

[chuckChuck]

Silverback everyone on this site knows prices and margins rise and fall in every industry.

The question is whether the Canola crush margins are generally higher than the soybean industry and why is this happening? Is it because of a lack of competition? Or is there some other reason why they are higher in Canada than the US?

[gregpet]

I guess clicking on the link was to much trouble for you. Here it is:

Oilseed crushers should choose their crop carefully.

Just look at the difference in the fortunes of North American processors handling
canola, Canada's most popular oilseed, and the soybeans prevalent south of
the border.

Crushing canola, the ****seed variant, last year earned margins of $129 a
tonne, compared with $28 a tonne for soybeans, according to Rabobank.

And, without a nudge from China, the dynamics look unlikely to reverse any time
soon.

Importance of oil

Part of the difference is down to seed characteristics.

Canola's yield of vegetable oil is, at 42-44%, more than twice that of soybeans.
And oil, largely used in human consumption, is typically three-to-four times more
valuable than meal, the other product of oilseed, an important ingredient in
livestock feed.

Furthermore, canola oil is viewed on health grounds as superior to soyoil,
higher in so-called trans-fats linked to cholesterol fears. California and New
York city have imposed trans-fat bans, with Illinois considering one.

"With a 12% compound annual growth rate since 2001, Canada's canola
producers have demonstrated that they are willing and able to continue
displacing US-produced soyoil for food use," Rabobank analyst David Nelson
said.

Margin pressures

However, knock-on market dynamics have put soybean crushers at a
disadvantage too.

The decision by China to fill its huge deficit in soymeal and soyoil by importing
the oilseed itself, to keep its crushers in business, rather than buying in the
products has curtailed prospects.

"China's surge in soybean imports means that US processors must pay higher
prices for soybeans relative to the domestic price for soymeal, which has
contributed to processor margin contraction," Mr Nelson said.

Indeed, US soymeal prices have proven especially restrained by growing
supplies of distillers' grains, a byproduct of America's booming corn-ethanol
industry, and an alternative protein source for livestock feeders.

"The distillers' grains discount has dissipated as animal protein producers have
done a better job at incorporating the [product].

"Clearly, the entrance of a major new competitor has tempered soymeal
demand, as well as crushing margins."

Hope ahead?

At least the prospect of a slowdown in growth in the US corn ethanol industry, as
tax fillips are withdrawn, provides hope for soybean crushers, in curbing growth
in distillers' grains supplies.

However, the main hope for the industry may be a turn by China to importing
meat - probably largely from the US - to fulfil burgeoning demand for protein,
rather than the feed needed to stimulate its own livestock production.

Even the outsourcing of 2% of China's pork production to the US would lift
America's output by 10%, with a consequent boost to soymeal demand.

"There is a certain logic to China importing some of its pork supplies," Mr Nelson
said, noting that the country often has the most expensive corn, a major feed
component, and has witnessed increasing concerns over food safety in the
livestock industry.

[silverback]

That seems pretty clear and reasonable hey chuck?

What other things can you bring up to try and deflect attention away from the failings of your beloved cwb?

You are about due for another round of supply management ranting. The problem is you never answer anyones questions about whether you want to keep the supply managed system or not? The nfu loves it, do you? Or are you as always just looking for a way to slam the federal conservatives?

[rodb]

Chuck Chuck

Has anyone done a study on handling charges of CWB grains vs open market?

Had a group of Aussies touring and they couldn't figure out why grain company was charging more to handle wheat than Canola. Can you explain?

[blackpowder]

good work gregpet. too bad it's sign language to the blind.
Interesting to note that crush margins and basis levels are completely open. AND we built the industry largely by ourselves without big brother controls on supply demand.
no trace of the ex-directors left on cwb site, Merry Xmas chuckchuck

[bobofthenorth]

Rosassen's real problem has nothing to do with oil crush margins and everything to do with losing his sugar daddy. Its time for a major shakeup in the U of S Ag Econ department. Maybe the fact that they can't do light weight studies for the CWB every other year will help that along.

[jimbobobaroo]

Back to the start of this thread. Chuck was or have I
ever been allowed to sell my assets in the CWB? As an
owner has this right been bestowed to me at any point
in time? Following that, is an asset that a person can
never sell really an asset? If I have missed something I
regret not selling out earlier.

[TOM4CWB]

Chuck,

The 'Confiscation' line of total fictitious bable is telling.

Anyone can read the CWB Act C24... and C18 any time they can muster reading these statutes. It couldn't be clearer that the Government owns the CWB... as it couldn't be clearer that the CDN gov. owes any loss the CWB creates by overpaying growers for grain should the markets go south and CWB risk managers fail to protect the Canadian tax payers.

SO the CWB has NO tax burden as other co-ops and private industry do.

You accept Ralph Goodales 47.1 clause in the C24 CWB Act... yet the same statue clearly says:

7. (1) Subject to the regulations, the Corporation shall sell and dispose of
grain acquired by it pursuant to its operations under this Act for such prices
as it considers reasonable with the object of promoting the sale of grain
produced in Canada in world markets.

Profits

(2) Profits realized by the Corporation from its operations in wheat under this Act during any crop year, other than from its operations under Part III, with respect to the disposition of which no provision is made elsewhere in this Act, shall be paid to the Receiver General for the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Losses

(3) Losses sustained by the Corporation

(a) from its operations under Part III in relation to any pool period fixed
thereunder, during that pool period, or

(b) from its other operations under this Act during any crop year,

for which no provision is made in any other Part, shall be paid out of moneys
provided by Parliament.

R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 7; 1998, c. 17, s. 28(E).

The elected CWB directors have full well known, and ExChair Oberg answered correctly the Senate question about ownership of the rail cars, building, and ships.

ON the SHIPS: THE CWB elected directors broke the law buying them out of the pool accounts. As they broke the law all the way through the hoax plebicite they promoted and wasted our money on.

"Duty to comply

3.12(2) The directors and officers of the Corporation shall comply with this Act,
the regulations, the by-laws of the Corporation and any directions given to the Corporation under this Act."

There is much for the 8 elected CWB crazy directors to answer for. Hypocracy and the high handed breach of the very laws they so carefully blame the Government of Canada for breaking.

[TOM4CWB]

Chuck,

By the way... we had a BIG fight with Minister Goodale over this part of C24:

"7. (1) Subject to the regulations, the Corporation shall sell and dispose of grain acquired by it pursuant to its operations under this Act for such prices as it considers reasonable with the object of promoting the sale of grain produced in Canada in world markets."

There was NO Duty of care to maximise our grain prices under C24.

C18 correctly states:

" Object

6. The object of the Corporation is to market grain for the benefit of producers who choose to deal with the Corporation. "

Goodale was too bone headed and arrogant to put this in in 1998.

[wd9]

Chucky, because soy has oil as the byproduct and canola has meal which is really hard to move is why the crush margin is higher. Really quite simple actually.