makin' it work 2

[tower]

charliep, I tried suggesting that agriville use a paging system for the various threads, so that a certain number of posting or a certain number of bytes would go into each page. That allows participants who are familiar with a thread to go to the last page which allows faster downloading time. There is a drawback in that if you get a few pages going and someone who hasn't been reading the thread wants to do so they would have to go through the pages to find out all that has been said.

Anyway, I started makin' it work at this thread ... https://www.agriville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1189288803

with the idea that we should take responsibility for the cwb as farmers. I think it would also be be an appropriate cost item have a pr department that assisted in efforts to educate the public/consumers about the value of farm income in grain products on store shelves. In the process it would help to educate concerning the value to processing, handling, wholesaling, and retailing companies in grain products on store shelves.

With the continued conglomeration of agribusiness we should all be aware of what a grainfarmers choices will be if we lose the board, very little.

Chaffmeister suggested the option of making the board voluntary, aside from the fact that I don't see how that would work, chaffmeisters reasons appear to me to be resolvable within a farmer controlled cwb.

[parsley]

Separate the dual function of the CWB.

1. The CWB itself continue to market designated area grain.

2. Trade and Commerce take over the national licensing function, issuing licenses for all wht/barley in Canada, and treating all applicants equally, just as the act requires

[silverback]

Do you really, and I mean really, think that the average person buying some crackers or some muffins really cares how much of that product gets back to the farm gate? Of what value is it to have the gas companies put the amount of taxes the gov't gets from a litre on the pump?

A better idea would be to show how much of a tax per bushel the farmers on the prairies are paying in order to keep the office in Winnipeg operating.

If you cannot even admit that a farmers wheat should belong to the farmer, or that we are being hammered by the poor cwb marketing performance, or that we are subsidizing the rest of this countries farmers you are willfully blinded by your allegiance to the board.

Step away from the paycheck for a brief minute and think about the other farmers out here in the real world.

[chaffmeister]

If you want to promote Canadian wheat, take a look around. The US does a bang-up job of promoting US wheat – without a marketing board.

http://www.uswheat.org/overview

So if you want the CWB to do it, that’s fine. But take marketing away from the CWB. Perhaps change the name to the Canadian Wheat Commission (CWC) – it could adopt a slogan similar to US Wheat Associates, perhaps like:

“CWC does not buy, sell, or process Canadian wheat. We make it easier for everyone else to.”

[chaffmeister]

Tower – you think without the CWB farmers would have fewer choices. Here’s the math that works for me:

Start with the current total number of grain buyers....
take away the CWB (one)...
add Canadian millers...
add Canadian maltsters...
add small shippers that aren’t AE’s...
add US elevator companies (many)...
add US millers (a few)...
add US maltsters (at least a couple)...
add offshore buyers...

EQUALS many, many more choices.

Also – farmers would have the opportunity to do stuff to their wheat instead of just sell it – like Prairie Pasta Producers wanted. Take a look at what you could be doing with your wheat-freedom or barley-freedom:

http://www.wheatmontana.com/about.php

But more importantly, you’d have a new choice – what to do with the extra income.

[chaffmeister]

Concerning a voluntary CWB – it would work. On this you’ll just have to trust me. (Sorry, I just don’t have time to explain it once again.) What’s more important though is that the “market” would work – much, much better. For everyone.

And no, my reasons for a voluntary CWB (high costs, poor marketing and low non-CWB prices) would not be resolvable within a farmer controlled CWB – unless it was voluntary.

Those that opted to market without the CWB would see lower costs and better marketing performance.

Everyone would see better non-CWB prices.

[northfarmer]

so.....i do not have the board to help me market my canola, oats, peas and you think we will have no choice when it comes to wheat and barley......we have had great off combine movement on all non barod crops, both cash and deffered delivery contracts....but my premium winter wheat and #2 CWRS are sitting in a bin, likley to be moved next summer and at a discount to the real world record wheat prices....

give up on your corporate and capitalist conspiracy theories and give my little corporation the chance to behave like most business in the free world, the individual choice and freedom to market my own production....and if you board huggers want to market you grain collectively you are more than free to do so on a voluntary basis...plain and simple a clear majority of production wants choice, never mind a simple majority of producers that want change.....

I suspect that this winter, when the crop is in the bin, and farmers can direct their attention to marketing and moving this crop you will start to see significant and vocal support for market freedom.....real producers, those with most of their future in farming ahead of them then behind them, and those also with the wisdom and succes of building succesfull farms that are looking at passing the business to the next genration will show there strong and unwavering support for change and freedom.....those that were hoping and demanding changes in barley coming out of last winter will not rest with the harsh dissapointment of the judges ruling in Calgary.....they will not only demand barley be freed but also wheat.....

I would propose that Agri-trade in Red Deer in November would be a good place for a rally of support for this government to bring about changes, get our pro choice BOD directors there, get Rits and Harper there, show the media nd the public the real faces and families of farmers that want chage to happen!!!...then repeat for Crop Production Show in Sakatoon and Ag-Days in Brandon...enough of this bull%^$#..it is time for freedom!!!!

okay that rant is over, now bring me some sun and wind so I can get the rest of this crops off.

[agstar77]

Chaff , one small fly in the ointment of more buyers. The railways are bent on allocating railcars on the basis of 100 car spots. Unless you can truck your product out you will have to go through a third party namely Viagra or one of the other large players, oops can you say middleman.

[parsley]

GOVERNMENT WORKING HARD ON INITIAL PAYMENTS



OTTAWA, Ontario September 21, 2007 – The Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, today issued the following statement regarding the Canadian Wheat Board’s (CWB) request to increase initial payments for wheat and barley.



“Farmers are benefiting from the highest commodity prices in years. Canada's New Government is committed to getting as much of that money into the pockets of hard working farmers as quickly as possible.



“By the time the Canadian Wheat Board released its initial prices on August 2, it was already clear that commodity prices were rising and the CWB acknowledged the need to raise the initial prices. On August 15, the Canadian Wheat Board officially asked the government for the initial price increases. It's unfortunate that it took the CWB nearly two weeks to make the request to begin the process to adjust the initial price.



“Canada's New Government is committed to accountability and that means taking the time to do the job right. My departmental officials and I are working hard to do the due diligence to review the request and deliver the best possible decision as quickly as possible.”

For more information, media may contact:



Media Relations

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

613-759-7972

1-866-345-7972



Todd MacKay

Minister Ritz’ Office

613-759-1059

[agstar77]

Even if true , that's over 30 days to adjust something they knew needed adjusting!!

[Fransisco]

That's an extra 2 weeks your board of directors dragged their heels agstar. It starts and ends with them, they are the ones playing politics with your initials. If you are going to play the blame game blame those whose fault it really is.

[parsley]

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2007/20070822/html/sor183-e.html#REF1

That's the official Canada Gazette page, agstar, do you suppose it's true?

QUOTE

"Vol. 141, No. 17 — August 22, 2007
Registration
SOR/2007-183 July 31, 2007
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Regulations Amending the Canadian Wheat Board Regulations

P.C. 2007-1193 July 31, 2007
Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, pursuant to subparagraph 32(1)(b)(i) (see footnote a) and section 61 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, hereby makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Wheat Board Regulations.

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS
AMENDMENT
1. Subsections 26(1) and (2) of the Canadian Wheat Board Regulations (see footnote 1) are replaced by the following:
26. (1) The sum certain that the Corporation is required to pay producers on a per tonne basis under paragraph 32(1)(b) of the Act in respect of the base grade of wheat sold and delivered to the Corporation during the pool period beginning on August 1, 2007 and ending on July 31, 2008 and known as No. 1 Canada Western Red Spring (12.5% protein content) is
(a) $147.50 for straight wheat;
(b) $139.50 for tough wheat;
(c) $132 for damp wheat;
(d) $139.50 for straight wheat, rejected on account of stones;
(e) $131.50 for tough wheat, rejected on account of stones; and
(f) $124 for damp wheat, rejected on account of stones.
(2) The sum certain that the Corporation is required to pay producers on a per tonne basis under paragraph 32(1)(b) of the Act in respect of the base grade of wheat sold and delivered to the Corporation during the pool period beginning on August 1, 2007 and ending on July 31, 2008 and known as No. 1 Canada Western Amber Durum (12.5% protein content) is
(a) $144 for straight wheat;
(b) $136 for tough wheat;
(c) $128.50 for damp wheat;
(d) $136 for straight wheat, rejected on account of stones;
(e) $128 for tough wheat, rejected on account of stones; and
(f) $120.50 for damp wheat, rejected on account of stones.
COMING INTO FORCE
2. These Regulations come into force on August 1, 2007.


REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Description
Section 26 of the Canadian Wheat Board Regulations establishes initial payments for the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) pool accounts. These payments are paid to producers upon delivery of grains into the elevator system over the course of a pool period. The amendment establishes initial payments for the 2007-2008 pool period, with a comparison to those set a year earlier, for the base grades of wheat (an increase of $10 per tonne) and of amber durum wheat (an increase of $26 per tonne).

Alternatives
Alternatives considered were to establish the initial payments at lower levels. Initial payments are announced to reflect to producers the market conditions in which their crops must compete. These conditions are based upon current and forecast supply/ demand relationships for wheat both domestically and internationally and which can change very rapidly as markets react to a multitude of market factors. Although world production of wheat in 2007-2008 is forecast to increase from the level of 2006-2007, the strong world demand for wheat and the projected decline in end-of-year world stocks of wheat for 2007-2008 are expected to result in higher world wheat prices in 2007-2008. However, the stronger Canadian dollar in relation to the US dollar in 2007-2008, compared to 2006-2007, will moderate the increase in wheat prices in Canadian dollar terms.

Benefits and costs
The initial payments established by these Regulations indicate the returns anticipated from the market, as of mid-June, and thus transmit appropriate market signals to producers. This allows both large and small producers to make their marketing decisions more efficiently based upon anticipated returns to their individual farms.
The higher initial payment for wheat will result in higher returns to producers on a per tonne basis. Government policy has been to avoid using initial payments as a means to providing farm income support. The higher initial payments for wheat and amber durum wheat will transmit to producers the appropriate market information. Initial payments can be increased during the pool period, depending on international market prices and conditions. There is no environmental impact of this amendment.
Consultation

This amendment has been discussed with The Canadian Wheat Board and with the Department of Finance.
Compliance and enforcement
There is no compliance and enforcement mechanism. These Regulations govern payments made to grain producers for deliveries made under the Canadian Wheat Board Regulations governing delivery permits."

UNQUOTE

[charliep]

agstar77

Just curious how much it cost the CWB to send out an adjustment payment? Isn't it more cost effective to wait until November when more information is known and send out one bigger cheque versus a whole bunch of small ones. Would note the August adjustment (regardless of who is delaying) would be based on the July PRO information - only a small increase at that time. A major increase in the August and likely another round of increases on September 27. Initial payment spreads have remained relatively consistent with the PRO ones but will be a need to review once the crop is in the bin. Farmers who need cashflow (as has been highlighted before by others) have several CWB producer pricing options to choose from).

If you put politics to the side, November/December is a much better time for the federal government to announce adjustment payments versus a whole bunch of small ones. Perhaps you disagree. I am also curious as to whether you would recommend using the PPO alternatives the CWB offers to generate cash flow?

[chaffmeister]

Agstar:
The CWB and 5 others filed level-of-service complaints against CN (Sept 5).

The CWB and nine other grain shippers were core interveners in a previous case (July), which was also supported by the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, other grain-industry organizations and major farm groups.
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsroom/releases/2007/090507.jsp

So tell me, how did the CWB effect the result of the first claim? I guess if it had been "successful", there'd be no reason for the current claim.

Just how is the CWB contributing? Wouldn't the process we're seeing still happen even without the CWB?

[charliep]

To bring back to your question tower, I would review alternative for dealing end of the crop year marketing decisions. This year is a prime example of why change is needed. Farmer decisions about which crop year to price into impacting old crop payments (reduced payment potential by $5/tonne according the the July 2006/07 PRO information). Extended crop year (well into August in many locations this year) which plug the elevator system up with grain that may or may not have a sales commitment (inventory plugging the system). Old crop deliveries that is priced in the new crop pool and will likely reduce the current crop year returns (why the monster adjustments over and above the current crappy basis levels).