Question about CWB and malt barley

[Fransisco]

oops, that should have been...

tower said, "chaffmeister, one mans proof is what he wants to hear. While on the other hand another mans proof is what he wants to hear."

Are we to assume from this then tower that you have blinders on and only accept evidence, be it theoretical or factual, that supports your case?

[chaffmeister]

Tower – good of you to actually review things in the interest of good discussion. Now, sorry for the length, but……..

You may have missed something in your review of the Quorum data:

1. This data shows more than the CWB admin costs – I’m talking about total CWB-system costs. Not only is there the CWB admin costs, there is also handling and cleaning charges, as well as freight and trucking premiums etc. The CWB system costs for wheat (paid by farmers) averaged $61.81 per tonne in 05/06 (page 184). The non-CWB system costs for canola (paid by farmers) averaged $41.51 per tonne in 05/06 (page 186). The CWB system cost to the farmer was $20.30 per tonne more for wheat than the non-CWB system was for canola. (CWB data comes directly from the CWB, by the way.) The reason for the difference is competition for canola and no CWB admin costs on canola.

2. You say you don’t see the direct relationship between barley and canola that you think I was talking about. Perhaps that’s because I wasn’t talking about barley vs canola. Quorum doesn’t report on barley costs in their report – hope you didn’t look too long. If you want, you can go to their “Net Back Calculator” which is an online tool to calculate the net cost to you for CWB barley. I did it for a number of locations – works out to about $60.00 per tonne – very similar to wheat.

These are real numbers, tower. You can double-check with anyone in the grain business – they’ll confirm this comparison.

You also missed something in your review of the Sparks Study:

1. You questioned the comparison of FOB Portland values to instore Vancouver values. It’s a common mistake to assume you need to compare FOB Portland to FOB Vancouver. However, in the US, terminals don’t charge a fee for elevation and loading like we do with CWB grains in Canada. Terminal operators earn revenues from trading throughput – not “handling” as we know it. The terminal is used as a tool to earn trading revenues along the whole chain – country to vessel. Also, in Portland, there are numerous other terminal charges, most significantly dockage and wharfage – basically parking fees charged to the exporter or vessel operator for allowing the vessel alongside the terminal. For these reasons, the difference between track Portland (price in a railcar positioned for unload at a terminal) and FOB Portland (ex spout into a vessel) is too small to worry about. To put it into perspective, I know of a handling agreement between a terminal operator and a shipper where the operator charged a penny and a quarter per bushel to handle corn on a toll basis - $0.49 per tonne. (I know of situations where exporters that operate terminals actually buy grain basis track at higher prices than their FOB offers, implying negative elevation revenue – but of course they make it up elsewhere.)

As it works out, the terminal charges for a typical vessel in Portland works out very close to Vancouver fobbing costs – more or less. (This was explained in the study on page 64, second paragraph)

The appropriate comparison is FOB Portland to instore Vancouver.

2. Since that analysis was apparently to discover marketing performance, interest revenue from sales made 20 years previously was correctly disregarded as it has nothing to do with current year marketings. If the study was meant to discover the net value of the CWB – not just its marketing performance – then I suspect they would have included the interest revenue. Did you notice that CWB admin and operating expense were also excluded – giving a very “raw” look at sales performance. Once these costs were added into the calculation, it looks REALLY bad.

3. As for the other points that you don’t want to comment on except to say <i> I think the wheat board like any other body can be misinterpreted if it suits the needs of people who have another belief system</i>, you have touched on a serious problem. Much too much of this debate is based on “beliefs”. What has “belief” got to do with facts?


So you “believe” the CWB plays an important role in the “independence” of the western Canadian farmer. I believe it doesn’t. One of us is right. And only one. The only way we can settle this is to rely on FACTS. So even though it sure seemed like you were suggesting Sparks and others like me misinterpret the CWB because it suits a particular belief system, you should take note that the Sparks analysis is based on facts - not beliefs.

As for me – I too like facts. And the best part of the analysis and data from Quorum and Sparks is that the facts are from the CWB itself.

Interestingly, the CWB has never publicly commented on the Quorum data nor countered the Sparks study. Also, no CWB-supporter has presented FACTS that counter anything I’ve ever posted here. In fact they usually don’t counter or comment at all.

[parsley]

The Creston-Wyndell area of British Columbia seceded from teh Designated Area.

Fiisrst of all, they seceded informally by getting no-buyback export licenses from the CWB the same as the Ontarion always has enjoyed.

Secondly, the CW area formally seceded from the CWB by means of a legislative change to the CWB Act whereby the CW area was removed from the DA.

Did you even notice? The CW area is not part of the DA, the farmers in that area market on their own, but they don't seem to be pounding the door of the CWB to get back into the DA.

Does it work? You bet.

Can it work if some of the rest of the DA farmers embrace marketing choice?


You bet.

Parsley

[charliep]

tower

Will work will Joe Dales to see what I can do to get CWB participation. I would also encourage you to contact them directly - your request likely has more weight. From past conversations, the site is monitored by the CWB. Suspect some of the posts have heavy CWB influence.

[silverback]

Who initiated the legislative change for Creston/Wyndell ??

What was the process?

[parsley]

Firt of all, Creston-Wyndell farmers just trucked back and forth across the border.

Technically, they probably broke the law.
They did it for years.

CWB looked the other way.

Then the change was made in Parliamnet to re-define the Designated area. The new definition excluded that particular area.

Alberta could run theuir own plebiscite, and insisit on redefinition of the DA and it would be difficult for pParliamentarienas not to pass it, particularly if farmers themselves instigated and executed a plan that only asks foe parity of privilege, the same as OPntario now enjoys.

Parsley

[silverback]

Then the really obvious question is why have our Alberta politicians done nothing to get this going for this many years?

Seems pretty simple.

Can you say lip service?

Perhaps the word conservative has been just a little misleading.

[parsley]

It was the Creston farmers who did "something"

Not the Alta Governemt.

Maybe the Alberta farmers need to act.

Parsley