doing a rough survey...

[bucket]

Guess what I was getting at is there any way of measuring value for $ paid or penalties for not getting full value when money is spent?

I asked the question to two finance people ...one at Saskpulse and one at Pulsecanada...the question was simple...

Do you measure the ROI of checkoff dollars back to the farm gate?

Both answers is what led to this thread...

The backgrounder is simple ....why are the middlemen or industry getting handouts from Protein Industries Canada while primary producers get SFA....You can not have a healthy industries if you ignore primary producer....and 6 dollar peas and 16.5 cent reds lentils is not a return to the farm....While protein Isolate industries can recoup their costs and receive government funding farmers can not...

[SASKFARMER]

The whole system in Canada is ****ed up. From the seed, tax to make seed companies corporate welfare for life to the useless checkoffs that take the money and do sweet **** all. We have had issues with China for over a year very soon, and what has been done? We get a ****ing loan. Wow.

Then this help everyone up the chain and **** the farmer is getting sick.

I am owed money from a bankrupt canola crusher and guess what im getting sweet **** all.

I as a farmer, am getting tired of getting it up the ass.

[furrowtickler]

All of Ag is simply way too many hands in the cookie jar .... any hick up due to weather , markets or brutal politics like we have in Canada leaves farmers with crumbs if we are lucky
This has to change , we are literally feeding way too many mouths that are making way more than we are and we take 100% of the risk . It’s unsustainable.
So yes , there should be no mandatory check offs for anything we produce. These groups need to earn check offs not just take .
And since the pulse and canola tariffs have cost farmers millions they have done ZERO to earn one penny of check off money

[ry0972]

With regards to checkoffs and the forms/procedure to request OUR money back.
Anyone that has current forms and the tech ability to scan them should do so and post them on all/any forums they are on.
And if anyone has links or other ways to get as many farmers the ability to request checkoff money back that would help alot.

I try and request back all the ones I can for crops I grow/sell.

But I would like to even send in requests to organizations for crops I have not grown for a few years just to get the point across!!

I think 3 organizations could handle ALL the grains across Canada!!
One for cereals, one for oilseeds and one for pulse and special crops.
And they should be able to do it with under 20 people per group!!!!

[bucket]

And when everything is said and done all three should be on the same page when talking to government....

Farmers have tightened their belts plenty ...some of these groups could start tightening theirs...

You have a board for saskpulse and half of them sit on Pulse canada board....why?????

Both are supposedly representing farmers interests and yet the only guys getting better returns are the guys thumbing themselves not farmers...

[fjlip]

August is the only month for Wheat and Canola, you missed it, wait a year...

[Grahamp]

Been applying for mine for a few years. Would seriously consider donating my check off refunds to challenge the mandatory pulse growers.

[bucket]

Sadly a resolution has been passed to make the pulse checkoff refundable but the board shot it down....

I think it should be voluntary....where they have to ask for the money before taking it.....

Phucking guys don't want to listen or do performance reviews back to the farm gate or make pulse Canada accountable.....

Start begging for your money instead.....

[Quadtrack]

It is good you are planning to become more directly engaged by bringing forward and speaking to a resolution at the annual meeting. There needs to be more engagement of farmers with their organizations.

I disagree with your point of view that checkoffs should be voluntary. Although unpopular on this forum, I believe we would be better off with all the checkoff being mandatory and non-refundable but having considerable consolidation in groups-perhaps only one like Australia has.

I will present my reasoning for what it’s worth-I did spend some years as a director but no longer and now just try to keep up with my own farm work.
Regarding value, I don’t understand how anyone who grows pulse crops cannot recognize the value of having varieties that have been developed for our own region. Are Spectrum or Inca or Meadow not superior to Century or Trapper or even Carnival? Of course they are and their development has been paid for by farmer levy nearly 100%. Same w lentils-sure Laird Eston got us started along with Dr Al foresight, but much improvement has happened since, again paid by levy. Not all new varieties are ‘winners’ we all know that, but generally, over time, we have access to better than we did before. And this would not have happened without growers footing the bill because large seed companies don’t invest in tiny crops like a few million acres of pulses. Variety development aside, a good number of products that can be used to protect minor crops are available because of research funded by growers. Market development work as well, even though I know you don’t believe it, has opened opportunity that has been a huge benefit (peas, noodles, China for example)
Leave pulses alone for a minute-check back 25 years to the work SK canola did to develop the market in the US. A lot of effort, over many years, and today, a lot of canola oil and meal is used in the US. Check off funds paid for that. Would it have happened otherwise? Don’t think so. Sure, once it gets rolling, others like various companies/processors get in and run with it. But that is not how it started-check the facts.

On the aspect of refundability, what is happening more and more is larger farms are told by their accountant-hey, look at this x thousands you paid in levy, we can get that back. Larger the farm, bigger the sum. So a lot of the refunds are bigger checks. It’s really the opposite of ‘socialism ‘ as someone mentioned. Small or medium size pay in and don’t bother with refund, but large do-yet all benefit. I personally don’t take a refund and never have. Does it make the organization accountable? I think elections are the place for that.

I do think there is rationale to decrease the number of groups/decrease admin costs/decrease the number of directors etc. There is less of us farmers all the time, everyone is busy, and good directors are increasingly hard to attract. Despite the noise, being a director takes a lot of time and effort (detracted from one’s own operation) and is largely thankless. This same argument could apply to RMs in SK-each has a administrator for what, 100 taxpayers and falling, no one wants to be a councillor, amalgamation would save $$.

I think it is far better to get involved with one of our Ag organizations, stand for election, learn what is going on and attempt to influence the path it takes that will provide farmers with the best return and opportunity. As opposed to saying it’s all crap and should be shut down. There have been and are benefits/value. Could it be better? Yes, for sure. Is it up to an Ag organization to represent every issue all the time? No, there has to be focus or else nothing gets accomplished. Will you please everyone? Not a chance. I would argue that there are certain things that can only be done as a collective-direct farmer investment in variety development is one such. It takes millions and there is no guarantee a winning variety will emerge every year.

So clearly this is a different view from some. If I make it to the AGM, I look forward to the resolution discussion and I will speak against it.

[burnt]

It is good you are planning to become more directly engaged by bringing forward and speaking to a resolution at the annual meeting. There needs to be more engagement of farmers with their organizations...

Such an optimistic view is rather rare - and for good reason.

That reason being that involvement with a farm organization with any intention of influencing the preconceived outcome is usually an exercise in futility.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that most major farm orgs have "matured" to the point where they exist solely for their own ego and self-preservation - membership views be damned. especially if they might upset the status quo. Wouldn't want to jeopardize that accreditation process now, would we!

Attendees at a recent farm org meeting heard the former President of the organization voice his concern that the org was losing its "grassroots" input and becoming a top-down dominated structure.

This, coming from a fairly recent past president, to the pleasant surprise of several there who voiced their support for his words.

Yet even after that, when faced with discussing some material that didn't fit the preferred narrative, it was dismissed by some executive as "reactionary".

Pollyanna or realist?

Once a significant percentage of contributors ask for their checkoff to be refunded, the self-serving bums will be forced to choose between losing their positions or serving their actual mandate - representing the farmer.

#you'refired