makin' it work

[kamichel]

OF course this comes down to the 3 question ballot that us farmers supposedly cannot comprehend. You know when I look around at my neighbors I see a lot of very intelligent people.

[parsley]

That is a keen observation.

The farm community is composed of folks who are extremely hard working, extremely skilled, plus have an unbelievably wide array of skills, co-operate in their communities, just look at the rinks, volunteer both time and money, raise good kids, (how maany farm kids do you find in jail), are good neighbors, and contribute billions to the Canadian economy.


Celebrate who/what you are.


Parsley

[wilagro]

parsley: As opposed to the slothful CWB supporter no doubt...as he/she sits in front of the TV all day and eats TV dinners.

[tower]

silverback, utopia? no I don't think that's it,,, is your utopia one farmer by the name of cargterra admausea tyson?

I do think we would be better off with more farmers on the land than we have now, from a sustainability perspective each farm has it's own optimums and limiting factors. Overall criteria will include availability of fuel and water in the context of climate changes.

The closer a farm manager is to the peculiarities of the land he or she is responsible for, the better chance we have of being self sufficient.

[tower]

highwayman, The quota was a percentage of deliverables, whether high producer or low producer. I don't see an advantage to the low producer in that. That may have been the excuse used to give preference however.

It probably wasn't the cwb doing it but perhaps there was a message in it for those of us who were trying to out produce ourselves and our neighbours in that overproduction wasn't helping us.

[chaffmeister]

Tower. You're up. Great. I've been answering your questions but you seem to have missed mine. So I'll ask it again.

What is so bloody sacred about the CWB that you can't even see its shortcomings?

[tower]

adam smith. you put down the director elections as being political campaign type,,,, I'm curious about how the elections could be run without such a twisted system.

I've been to a few all candidate forums and was pleased when issues of relevance to marketing and returns to grain producers dominated the discussions.

[tower]

tom4cwb, you said that the multinationals can often make more money with the board in place,, is this compared to what they could and would do without the board in place? and how would you prove something like that.

what are the foundation problems in the wheat board that you speak of?

[tower]

chaffmeister, I get the feeling that you have a set of beliefs, and that there are trigger words that when you see them require you to miss anything else that is said, whether you percieve it as positive or negative. I feel like I should let you know that when you attack me you do no harm to the cwb but I don't know if you do read responses or your own evidence which I havbe seen you put forward.

[chaffmeister]

In case TOM4CWB isn't reading this, I can answer that last one.

FACT: Real life data shows that the grain companies (not always multinationals by the way) make more handling CWB grains than they do on non-CWB grains, like canola. Source is the Federal Grain Monitor Report - available on line at http://www.quorumcorp.net/reports.html

Competition for non-CWB grains drives costs down - not so for CWB grains because the system doesn't foster competition quite the same way.

There's a saying in the grain handling business - "You don't build elevators without CWB elevations."

[chaffmeister]

Tower:

I believe that the harshest thing I have directed to you is that you don't know what you're talking about and that you haven't been paying attention. If you believe that this constitutes an "attack" on yourself, that is unfortunate.

I'll put it it gentler terms. I believe you are mis- or under-informed about issues you address here on Agriville. And since you are asking questions that have been answered, you seem to have missed the answers.

You are right - I do have some beliefs. But you say that as if there's something wrong with that. It appears that the difference between us is that I provide actual real information that supports everything I put forward while you have yet to provide the basis of your belief - that the CWB actually provides value.

So with all due respect, could you please share what it is that you see that you think I don't.

Also, what is it in my responses or my "own evidence" that makes you feel I have missed something?

And what is it about my responses and data and facts that you find so unconvincing?

As I have said, convince me that the CWB is providing real value, and I'll argue that till the cows come home.

[tower]

chaffmeister, sacred? about the wheat board? that is only posturing, unless you haven't taken the time to read my posts.

I have looked at the quoeum reports for anything that says what you say about the relative incomes of the multinationals. please provide a fuller address or let me know how to access it.,

[tower]

fransisco, I've seen some pretty good social activists and protesters go to jail for reasons that I though were a lot better than trying to make an end run around the wheat board.

I have no sympathy there.

You have the option of trying to get elected in a relatively small election process and trying to change things from within.

[tower]

kamichel, I don't think we can count on the many markets for many sellers idea given the continuing amalgamation of agribusiness. However there is still a possibility that your options approach might help.

I'd like to hear a wheat board response to this one.

[chaffmeister]

Sacred - as in revered, valued, honoured, venerated.

Please don't take this the wrong way but your posts clearly demonstrate a high regard for the institution (such as "we're a lot better off with the CWB...") So the use of the word "sacred" refers to the unwavering devotion to the CWB demonstrated by some - even when faced with facts that clearly demonstrate some of its weaknesses. It is not "posturing".

So my question can be rephrased: "Why? Why do you support the CWB and seem to turn a blind eye to the facts?"

Concerning grain company revenues from handling grain:

Go to:

http://www.quorumcorp.net/Downloads/AnnualReports/AnnualReport200506DataTablesEnglish.pdf

Look at page 184 re wheat:

total average export "basis" in 05/06 was $61.81 per tonne

Average primary elevation was $11.76
Cleaning was $4.43
Average trucking premiums paid out was $4.56
Average CWB cost savings through tendering and terminal agreements was $1.32
All these items are to the account of the grain handlers - the first two are revenues, the second two are reductions to revenue. So on CWB business they averaged $10.31 per tonne revenue.

Add to that the export terminal elevations of about $10.

Those that don't have a terminal still get a "diversion fee" from the terminals that handle their grain - negotiated privately in the area of about $2.00 to $5.00 per tonne handled.

So you could say that the fully integrated firms make about $20 per tonne before blending gains; non-integrated firms make about $15 per tonne before blending gains.

Now go to page 186 for canola.

The total export "basis" is $41.51 per tonne.

The net difference between the street price (farm price) and the export price in Vancouver is reported to be an average of about $34.20. Considering the average freight rate is about $37 (look at the wheat page P.184), grain companies are showing a loss of $2.80 per tonne before blending and terminal elevations. I don't think I need to do the rest of the math to show that it's much more lucrative to handle CWB grains.

Believe it. Or not.