CWB Fixed Price Contracts

[bbrindle]

I hear the contract and registration info for the CWB fixed price and basis contract has arrived in your mail box (or check out the CWB site at www.cwb.ca) Any thoughts on what you're finding there? You might want to check out the website of the Minneapolis Grain Exchange at http://www.mgex.com/ Look under 'spring wheat' (left column menu). You'll find price charts for the Dec and Mar contracts for the last 5 years. You'll also find Minneapolis cash prices etc. Are Canadian farmers going to start to pay even more attention to the US wheat markets?

[bushed]

Nakodo, I was wondering if these types of surveys were done when seedless g****s oranges and the like were developed .Correct me if I'm wrong but would not these products that we all have enjoyed for many years be considered GMO's .I totally disagree with crossing insect genes with food product genes and that sort of biotechnology but I really think more thought should be put into 'is this good for us as humans or not'before we slam a new variety capable of producing more food for the worlds population .Granted maybe there should be more study done before these varieties are released but the costs would have to be passed onto someone else not the farmer. Perhaps gov't sponsership that way everyone would pay not just the the farmer who pays enough already We all know that the only reason for the big uproar is because of media coverage. The media can cause more grief for people than is necessary and that is a shame.People pushing their own agenda can be deceitful sometimes dangerous.

[craig]

I'm not sure about other producers but before I pass judgement on this program I want to see the basis level. If we assume that we are in a rising market we will likely not see much participation this first year which will then allow the board to say what was all the fuss about. The other kicker in this is that because a lot of this program is based on the Wheat Board Pro, it does leave the opportunity for the board to become more conservative in it's estimates. Will be interesting to track before and after the contracts start. Do we know how close the midpoint Pro has been to the final price in the past?

[bbrindle]

I got the following from AAFRD. I think it is for #1 CWRS (whereas the contract is based on 13.5%, but that shouldn't matter for your question). I don't know how to do tables here -- so let's see if this works. I just have for April & May & some June for each year (and the new program will cover 4 months, April - July). So the first set of numbers is the PRO in that month, and then the final for the year: 1996/97: Apr=269.76, May=264.96, Final=208.20 1997/98: Apr= 183.36; May=178.56; June=178.56 Final = 190.76 1998/99: Apr=168.96; May=168.92; June=171.84 Final 184.08 1999/00: Apr=181.44; May=174.72; June=168 (Current, ie March 2000 PRO) =166 I'll let you draw your own conclusions. However, three things to keep in mind: 1. There will be deductions off those spring values. Could be maybe $4-7/t 2. In an uptrending market, you have the basis option to consider. 3. Although delivery is not part of the contract, you would get all your money faster than with the pooling system. A final comment. As the 'farmer's marketing agency' I think the CWB should be providing this type of information to all farmers. They have it readily available and in my opinion should have been part of the mail-out package.

[nakodo]

No you are exactly right, when seedless g****s, watermelons etc. were created there was no Greenpeace or Sierra club. This type of scare mongering can create membership sales. One of Greenpeace's founders (now acting as an advisor to the forestry industry on how to counter Greenpeace's tactics was asked why he left and he said 'I left when they created a pension plan for the staff', it had become a machine, not an activist group he felt. And the machine needed to be fed $....Regardless perception can become someone's reality and we need some help to counter the perception they are propagating in the media to the consumer somehow.

[bmason]

This sort of poll tells me that the general public is very misinformed about the benefits side of GMO's. The media, Greenpeace, and Sierra Club have done quite a sales job on the public for the benefit of themselves only. Profit taking using fear-mongering is a very low-life way to make money. Where is the common sense among these organizations? I guess common sense can't be sold!! No guts, no glory! A poll that Angus Reid needs to instigate for the good of all of us is asking the public what they know about GMO's. I'll bet that very few know the benefits to society,the efficiencies created by there use, the quality products created by there use, of which science has only begun to realize, and the improvements to the environment created by using the products such as reduction of chemical use. I would think that countries like Europe should see this as a huge benefit since the farmers there are using multitudes of chemicals to control weeds, funguses, diseases and insects. GMO's would also make the organic farming system work more effectively and allow more farmers to enter that area. I can't see that the organic system will be sustainable without a lot of help and another earth to sustain the amount of land base needed as this system produces 25-50%. I think GMO's and there science is just another step towards improving the way we produce food and a step towards making a safer earth both for the environment and the people who live here. It makes good sense to reduce chemical use reliance, to produce more on an acre of land, to reduce the need for more land taken from wildlife and habitats, to improve the quality of products produced, to improve shelf life and reduce disease pathogens carried by inferior products. Sustainability, Improved Food Quality, and Environmental Protection, that's the idea behind GMO's.

[jtietjen]

It is very interesting to me, that people, who accuse other people of misinformation and media manipulation do exactly that themselves. If one wanted to lay down the facts, it would state, that GMOs in fact can have enormous benefits to society and could contribute to a better world. Nevertheless the flip side of the coin is, that they can also end the world as we know it in a very short time. The first thing that is going to happen is, that the technology will be owned by a few multinational companies who will dictate the price of food and who gets it. I twill have a devastating impact on the future of the so called Third World. Since the Government is getting more and more out of the control and testing of new developments, there is no real mechanism any more in place to prevent this technology to go wild, and being used for unethical purposes. In my opinion GMOs should be treated as strictly and safe as nuclear technology. As for the denouncing of organizations as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, I just might ask: How many Tschernobyls and three Islands would we have had without them. These organizations have a very important place in our society, especially when everybody is afraid to step on someone else’s toes because of fear to be not to be trusted by the guys that hand out the cheques. Johann Tietjen

[brian99]

You have two very different issues here and I think they need to be handled seperately. The first is GMO safety and the public perception of it. As for canola oil, there is no protien in the oil and therefore no DNA. It is indistinguishable from nonGMO oil. As for perception, I just saw a poll from Europe showing 58% of those polled thought GMO tomatoes had genes in them and nonGMO tomatoes didnt. Figure that one out. The same poll indicated triple the people trusted enviromental activist organizations vs government agencies or scientists. That number is reversed in North America. Clearly there is a missinformation campaign going on. As for food control, that is a huge question, one yet to be solved or even looked at closely. I think it is the biggest questioin facing agriculture today. If govt agencies get out of plant breeding there is a chance all farmers will become serfs, and thats not an exageration. Eventually the only crops that will make money will be those contracted to multinationals, who hold genetic patents and plant breeders rights. Farmers will be paid on a service contract basis.

[tigerd]

End the world? This is not a new thing, take insulin, and as stated before, seedless g****s. Why is this such a problem? Greenpeace and the like are hippocritical, as they want less chemical and a better environment. GMO allows this to happen, but everyone has to whine and bitch and bellyache. People have too much time on their hands.

[nakodo]

I guess my concern is with the 'interests' of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, if they are so dedicated to the savior role why do they have to have membership drives, pension plans for staff, senior managment flying first class etc. etc. Why not volunteers dedicated themselves without hyperbole to open discussion of issues??? I ask rhetorically??? Because that does not sell memberships or get you on TV. ???

[brian99]

Absolutely. Enviromentalism is big business nowadays. Organizations like Greenpeace would collapse without more memberships, and that means exposure. Get on TV. David Suzuki has his own foundation and web site(I must admit I dont know how it's funded), and sells books besides being a broadcaster.

[jtietjen]

I am still waiting for some qualified arguments regarding 'the flip side of the coin'. Maybe as another good example regarding the dangers of GMOs, I should mention the Teminator Gene, and what about liability, and ownership of genetic code. Just runing hate campaigns against environmental groups just doesn't cut it.

[cakadu]

In no one's defence, I think the campaign against the terminator gene may have been a bit premature. Hybrid seed varieties have been available for years, ie corn, and they have to be purchased and planted every year - so why is there no huge hue and cry about that? As far as there being cross pollination, the fact that the terminator seeds couldn't reproduce would have been of benefit here, I think. The GMO issue has many facets to it and they are getting more and more intertwined and the areas are becoming more and more grey. What is critical is that serious, logical dialogue take place, not fearmongering and unsubstantiated claims for and/or against the technology.

[zylstra]

I agree with most of what you say. GMOs could be could and/or bad. But I don't understand how multinationals getting this technology can dictate the price of food anymore than they do today. Hybrid seeds have been required for years, meaning new seed must be purchased every year - is this bad? For GMO crops there are non GMO alternatives, and even competing GMO crops from other companies; am I missing some mysterious economic competitive factor?

[brian99]

In response to Johann's 'flip side of the coin' question, I think you already have it figured out. Multinationals will run the world if allowed to control food production. Bill Gates is proof positive. GMOs are also the next step in increasing food production as our population increases. Every plant geneticist Ive talked to says we have levelled off in yield. There are no more major yield increases through conventional breeding. So where to from here? GMOs could provide plants that will grow in 3rd world counties, and be sponsored by governments. GMOs could be made to fix extra carbon, for carbon credits, or nitrous oxides to reduce pollution, or produce ozone to replentish the ozone layer. GMOs could manufacture plastics, or insulin, or antibiotics far more cheaplythan today and at little enviromental risk. The possibilities are endless. There therefore needs to be intense scrutiny of the process and all the players. I dont hate enviromentalists and I dont tell lies about them. Im just a simple farmer tired of defending myself and my industry from false fear and half truths. Enviromental groups do good work and that should continue. Public opinion has, however, given some groups enough clout so as to allow them to say anything they want and people think it's gospel. Thats not right.