CWB CONSIDERS ON- FARM PAYMENTS

[ianben]

This thread might be getting us all somewhere
Pricing must be the answer no matter who we market our grain through.
Knowing our own and each others cost of production must be our priority.
Then selling when we all can make a reasonable profit and supply the quality and quantities our customers desire.
There are lots of farmer myths and misunderstanding floating around about the folk we deal with.
However marketing choice does allow the customer to choose.
When we are the customer we demand this right!
We expect delivery on time of exactly what we order at the agreed price whch is usually at least suggested by the seller.
Instead of moaning and blaming others why dont farmers think our customers deserve this right.
Crop insurance, risk management futures options can be replaced by guarrenteed supply at a premium price.

High yeilds and empty bins by informed pricing and stock replacment. Droughts and poor quality riden with the stock in hand which we now give away in the good years.

Our problem is not CWB, grain merchants,
railways, hauliers, chem suppliers not even governments and subsidies but our refusal to at least suggest a retail price.

This is my main worry with CWB they act like an great big farmer trading unpriced grain with no reference to cost of production that I can see.

Is this not true?

[ianben]

Boone: Tendering seemed to be forced on to grainco by the CWB in the final days. But I also stand to be corrected on where the idea arose from. But for sure it is bad for the grain industry. I would like to see more competition for transportation. This way maybe rail would have to tender for the frieght. Then with marketing choice alot more raw commodity could be turned into value added products.I know most value added hates dealing with the CWB but they won't admit it in public for fear of being cut off of raw product.

[TOM4CWB]

Kernel and Boone;

You both are sort of right, but mostly wrong about tendering.

Minister Goodale told the CWB what is had to do on tendering... and a wackey CWB application of Goodale reading the riot act to the CWB... created what we have today.

[TOM4CWB]

It came from the biggest stakeholder on grain movement the Canadian Gov..
The railroad is railroading the whole country.

[poorboy]

Carefull what you wish for on giving the railways open rights to bid on moving your grain. There are only 2 companies involved an no one says that the tenders would involve price reductions go get your business. Look at gas stations, they offer convenience stores, give away items, free car washes, etc. to get you to choose them, but they seldom fight on gas price. Heck, most of them hope the other guys raise there price so they can raise the price too.

You might see the railways telling the grain companies that they will offer prompter service, etc and actually raise the freight rates.

Most US states pay more for rail freight than we do. The only reason they can sell it cheaply at the coast is that the US government built a lot of cheap terminals at the ports and the costs are extremely low, which helps to offset there higher rail freight. Did you know that it cost more to freight grain from Montana to Seattle than it does from North Dakota to Seattle!

[boone]

Tom4cwb; did some more reviewing here. Tendering in the style that was put forward is based on a study done by Kroeger-Estey,which were trying to find ways to force efficiency out of the system and looking at what has been said on record CWB looked like they were dragged into this. It was put through the paces by a stakeholder group elevator,terminal associations,etc. This is what my research shows standing here to be corrected.