Would CWB votes be different if voting was based on tonnes of product sold to the CWB

[boone]

Parsley; are you sure your a farmer some of your questions are suspect here. You know I think I finally understand your reasoning. Let me ask you a question. If you were a dentist and obeyed all the rules of dentistry. And being ambitious you went and learned how to do plastic surgery. Now would every dentist have to conform to your rules of plastic surgery. And yes we would still call you doctor. The obvious answer to your simple question is rotations. And we use them all 5 kinds of wheat flax, lentils 2kinds, 3-4 kinds not varieties of peas, 2 kinds of mustard and 3-4 varieties of canola almost every year, Malt barley, you name it we vacuum it out of something.

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

The principal of substitution cannot be overriden by any marketer... not even OPEC.

If my barley is worth $3.00/bu as energy, instead of as a livestock feed... we will displace oil with barley.

If a short supply of wheat creates $8.00/bu, consumers may buy it until they see rice or potato products at half the cost... the habit is broken to depend on wheat... and the wheat then must come back down in price to compete with the substitution of rice and potato.

This is why the CWB monopoly extraction theory only works to a very limited extent....

On top, if the CWB gets greedy.... and does't sell the wheat it has avaliable when the brief $8/BU is avaliable... a double wammy happens!

The price must drop enough below the substitution arbitage value, to get end use customers to switch back to wheat again, which means that a 20% lower value(than the substitution arbitrage value) may be needed to get these folks to switch back to wheat.

SO in many instances the CWB extraction of higher prices can actually be counter productive... CASE IN POINT... what has happened in the last six months!

[boone]

CharlieP; that lesson will be discussed to death for the next while. But it closely resembles the new world order and valuations of the Technology bubble. If you think it's tough on you, how about us guys who saw wheat at $6.00 for the first time in early 1970's and canola at 9.98 and flax at 14.00, everyone wants to believe we are going to permanently break out of a price range that has not reflected a proper return on investment. That would be the equivalent of receiving $30.00 per bu of wheat today and $37. for Canola in constant dollars.

[henbent]

parsley, It is obvious that you have the answers to the questions and are in fact a legend in your own mind. GMO canola may have burst the bubble in this hard earned market. People/consumers, don't want the damn stuff, in their food and if you don't believe that then you are a fool or a Monsanto stooge not a farmer!

[charliep]

I hear both your concerns about price and new technology. There are still profitable farms however both reflecting good management and some government support (not saying adequate but it is there).

Just to remind you of the twins that were sent to see their birthday present in the barn only to see a pile of horse manure. One got really aggrevated that their parents would do this to them. The other looked for the pony.

My pony is I see new markets for our crops being developed every day. Many of these markets will be here at home in western Canada. Our challenge is to grow enough product to meet this demand. Cases in point - canola, barley, feed peas, milling wheat, etc., etc..

[parsley]

henbent, we all want your answer to this question.....Please answer yes or no:

Would you agree that the CWB's Licensing arm issues export/interprovincial licenses to applicants right across Canada?

Parsley

[JACKFLASH]

Henbent:
What are you talking about? GMO's have ruined the canola market. Consumers don't want it. What percentage of consumers?
As for markets. Europe produces enough canola to support itself,they hide behind the GMO scenerio, because they don't need more competition in the market.
Henbent how much GMO soybeans does Europe buy? answer lots,because they do not have the climate to support large acres to meet demand.
The U.S.,Mexico and Japan buy 80% or the canola Canada produces. We always hear about China doesn't want GMO canola.
If China could drive the price of Canadian canola down to 5.00. There would not be a seed left. 6 months later China could be exporting canola for a profit. The Chinese are astute buyers and even more astute sellers. Case in point they have done this with American corn many times. But really they are just trying to feed a huge population as cheaply as possible
To make the a long story short henbent, there are more dynamics going on in the world canola and veg oil business than this GMO crap you always want to want to rant on.

[parsley]

henbent,

If I worked for a Pharmaceutical (for instance, like Monsanto), I would do the following:

1. Make sure farmers get the message to grow bushels and bushels. And more bushels. Volumes. That way I can sell them more chemicals and ferilizers. I would make sure all the corporation's advertising campaigns reflected this message: low yields on your farm means that you are a damn poor farmer. (That's the ultimate insult!)


I would make sure that every ad tells farmers to kill every single weed because that means more bushels for you and therefore, more money for you.

2. I would promote volume exporting and support those instituions that facilitate volume exports. Bushels, bushels, bushels.

3. Sell more inputs with stronger names suitable to the job they will do. Ram, Lunge, Imbedded, Stallion, . (Avoid words like Lizard, Sheep, Goat or Turkey ).


Now here's the meat of the matter...... As the price of grain rises, the cost of inputs can rise accordingly, gaining more market share PLUS a price increase. Can't lose.

4. Partner with Government. Give generously to election campaigns to seal partnerships. Pay for Chairs at the universities. Give scholarships. Match government money. That way, half the cost of my research can be downloaded on the taxpayer. If the end results are, say, genetic pollution, the Federal Government will be sued because they have deeper pockets. ( Churches vs Federal Government in the Residential School cases)

5. Make sure that my Canadian corporate arm can undergo bankrupcy WITHOUT affecting my main Mother corporate body, if there is a class action suit, or an ecological disaster. Declare bankruptcy for the Canadian arm, and start over. This is really important.

6. Lobby bureaucrats ....Nisa, etc....so that all payouts reflect volumes....gross profit as opposed to net profit. Even if farmers didn't make any money through actual farming, the taxpayer subsidizes increasing bushels grown and the farmer can keep going!

7.Never listen to the end-users or buyers. "Educate" them. He's too uninformed to know what he wants.

That's what I'd promote if I worked for Monsanto, henbent.

But I don't work for Monsanto.

Parsley

[boone]

parsley; congratulations on that reversed lobotomy. Hey fellas it's snowing all over, great stuff.

[parsley]

Not reversed at all, boone. I really try to be consistent.

Farmers primarily grow canola because they think it will put more money in their pocket at the end of the year. Not because canola is the best rotation, (although that may well be), or because it makes good margarine. Or because they like the color of the crop. Or because they like a flowering crop.

Money. Wanting a better bottom line. Cash. $$$$$$$$$$$.

A new crop came along ...canola....and surpassed wheat/barley in dollar potential and farmers opted in. Voluntarily. Canola acreages jumped , and dollars jumped. Starting from scratch. Never underestimate niche markets and marketing attempts from the kitchen table. Canola has proven that very point.

That was my point and you missed it, probably because I didn't make the point clearly enough.

I think I've also tried to be very clear about my questions to henbent, wouldn't you say, boone?

Parsley