Grain Companies/CWB Deferring Open Market Feed Barley Sales?

[freewheat]

Those that vote "no", would be able to sell as they see fit, and those who say "yes", (all three of them), would be stuck with the wheat board. How does that sound? Rather than having marketing choices imposed on eachother, we just simply go our seperate ways, and bingo, it's done.

[kamichel]

Seems to me that moving the delivery month to Nov. Dec. should carry a price premium as all future prices seem to be carrying a premium. Likely the buyers would have agreed or no change would have happened. So how come no storage premium was negotiated on behalf of the farmers as the CWB is supposed to be working for the farmers.

[winwin]

'The directors must act in the best interests of the corporation.'
Who said they had any obligation whatsoever to farmers?
The LAW says NO.They MUST protect the board itself.
If they had any duty at all to farmers,how could you possibly defend a DOLLAR per bushel drop in the price of grain caused by them?
No defense.
They hide behind the act which clearly gives them a duty to the cwb---not farmers.

[parsley]

Exactly, winwin.

When Goodale changed the CWB Act, he could have revised it to act "in the interests of farmers".

He chose not to make this revision.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Winwin,

The CWB bylaws REQUIRE the CWB Directors to respect our common law property rights.

Shouldn't Agstar77 and Benny start looking after "designated area" grain growers instead of supply management farmers and livestock producers? DO the CWB Directors really believe CDN. domestic feed consuming farmers are more important than the suppliers growing the wheat and barley the CWB markets?

Is part of the CWB requirement of "Orderly Marketing" to keep the price of feed wheat and barley low... to save the "single desk" orderly marketing system... logic used by CWB managers and single minded Directors?

How else could these people justify destroying the domestic feed barley market?

I know this domestic feed issue is not the in stated objective of the CWB marketing system either way... but perhaps this is the underlying issue that drives CWB management?

What other logic would drive the Agstars of the CWB world to defend the undefendable and proclaim negative is positive?

[tower]

posted Aug 20, 2007 10:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tom4cwb I'll give it a try if you like but it would be a good idea to get a second opinion.

If the board does conciously or subconciously enforce grain farm subsidization of the feed industry I'd have to assume that there would be two main causes of it

; the first is that we as grain farmers elect cattlemen to represent us on the board and can't see the bias put into the system in that way.

; the second would be that sucessive federal conservative and liberal governments have been enamored of the dollars put into the economy through having a large cattle and hog and poultry industry, and so have instructed the board through their appointees to give support to that sector. I don't doubt that the respective feeder associations have succeeded in putting ample lobby pressure on the governments to do this.

At the same time grain growers are divided against each other because we are all fed up with the low prices. As well we will go out and get higher yielding varieties, throw the fertilizer and chemicals to the field in an effort to out produce, well, ourselves basically. I think we should let governments and agribusiness multinationals know that we understand that it's societies bias against the primary producer more than anything else that's hurting the grain growers.

Remember the market assumes that because we are overproducing we can afford to. Therefore it will try to offer less in the honoured tradition of efficiency gains.

[charliep]

Just a reminder where the thread started from. My understanding this was likely a share grain company/CWB decision with the latter likely the biggest proponent. I would suggest deferring some (not all) off the combine export business will help stabalize/lower domestic feed costs. There is also a risk that the 500,000 to 600,000 tonnes turn into 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes if the feed barley business done optional origin and Aussie crop improves and/or Russia/Ukraine modify their policy to promote more export licences. The 700,000 tonne CWB malt short will also come into play. The question will be whether farmers are benefiting from these decisions or whether buyers/others benefit more.

[charliep]

Just to put the question another way.

Both Canada and Australia will have (the story is unfolding in both countries on both the yield and quality) extremely tight barley supplies in the coming crop year. Under the renewed western Canadian single desk world, which system provides farm managers the necessary market information for decision making - Canada or Australia?

[kamichel]

Charlie Australia's crop will come off Nov. Dec. So that would put our delivery periods at the same time. Charlie is these sales optional origin in that grain has not been contracted with farmers yet?

[charliep]

You ask the million dollar question. Chaffmeister indicate earlier that Canadian origin but no one knows. The CWB influence will also impact but again unknown how they have approached things as well as the terms of the contracts.