DPC $9.26 Saskatchewan!

[charliep]

Just curious why the system would have to clear the system? There are processes the CWB uses now to value inventory between pooling years. Why couldn't they be applies to multiple pooling periods? What may be needed is contracting systems that provide for the requirements of customers for supply commitment. That will mean medium term contracting programs with individual farmers for a specific customer supply needs.

The only other question is how CWB costs are allocated. The cost allocation between between the A and B feed barley pool is weird to say the least (see last 2 years annual reports) and would hate to see repeated in any wheat multiple pooling periods.

My question to you is whether you see an opportunity for cash pricing? I assume you are familiar with the discussion around cash pricing for malt barley. Which one of the two extremes would you favor for wheat?

[wmoebis]

By clearing the system I don't speak of physically clearing commodities I speak of the legal, financial and administration aspects.
The way our system is working now would not work, as we seem to be always waiting for the books at the board level to be adjusted then waiting for the minister to Okay payments etc. In the mean time many farmers are operating on borrowed money or having to make financial adjustments while waiting in anticipation. Which is, an added cost to the system, as we the producers are part of the system and have to be factored in.

[charliep]

The present system for allocating costs is cumbersome to say the least. Why wouldn't the CWB estimate these costs and come up with a value that would apply to all pooling periods? Payments could be made to farmers a month or two after the pool closes based on these costs. Any profit or lost from this aspect of pooling would go into the contingency (similar to what they do today for the producer pricing options).

[charliep]

You also could be referring to the taking of inventory and settling of books between the different pooling periods. Would this be bad from a farmer standpoint? I would hope the CWB and grain companies take this process seriously already on monthly basis from a risk management standpoint (both price and inventory).

You also could be referring to the cost of sending out payments etc. I assume with shorter pooling periods, the CWB/federal government be more aggressive on initial payments. Similarly, the CWB would not issue adjustment payments as often and this would reduce this administrative expense. I note the decision was made to combine the interim and final payments for 2006/07 for this very reason.

[wmoebis]

I agree with your thoughts. One of my concerns in the presant system is the need for the board of directors whom are appointed and trusted by the minister and elected by we producers, to have to go back to the gov't for authority to pass our moneys back to us. Which of late has taken far too long.

I speak of the pool accounts only, as I realize there are other options in place for price and risk management.

For me as a producer risk management goes beyond finacial and marketing management. There is storage management of commodities to preserve quality and infestation. Grain that I may want to hold to the third quarter has to be handled differently than that sold in the first. This adds extra financial burden and must be reflected in the financial gains. Financial commitments could be more accurately timed, to coincide with chosen markets and payments.

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

The US growers are sweeping out their bins now.

The US system will soon be ready to ship our wheat... Will US growers mind when they see local communities and business win our grain because we CANUKS blew it in the biggest best milling wheat market in history?

Wheat DOWN... Fertiliser Back!

Isn't it time we sprinkled some stardust on our iron and headed south?

[wedino]

Tom4, Likely no problem crossing south, are customs agents going to hassle on crossing north bound?