if all the farmers in Mb Sk and Ab stopped

[nakodo]

growing wheat and canola, what would their total crop (removed) be as a % of the global trade in those products?see www.fos.sk.ca for my interest. I suspect the removal of the entire Cdn crop would not significantly impact on prices or supply unless it coincided with a global disaster in Aus or the US or the EU?Let me know.

[bbrindle]

This will give you a ballpark idea, based roughly on the projections for 2000. I'm showing both production and trade (mmt=million metric tonnes): 1. Wheat: Canada produces about 4% of the world's wheat (26 mmt of 591 mmt). Canada handles about 18% of the world wheat trade (19 mmt of 106 mmt, including products) 2.Canola: Canada produces 7% of the world's ****seed (7 mmt of 40 mmt). Canada handles 40% of the world ****seed trade (4 mmt of 10 mmt). A few comments: It should be mentioned that the sabattical group's webside does not suggest a complete hault in Canadian production. Their proposal is to remove 8 bln bu from the US and Canada. They say the last major drought removed 2.5-3 bln. To put in perspective the entire US corn crop this year is expected to be 10 bln bu. Or, to compare to the numbers above they are talking about roughly 66 mmt (2.5 bln bu) -210 mmt (8 bln bu). Canada is expected to produce about 63 mmt of all grains and oilseeds this year. Although they don't suggest removing the entire Canadian crop, that's about what it would amount to. So, they have a very ambitious goal. To me the key questions are: a) is there a substitute? and b) what happens next? A portion of wheat use is feed. There are various substitutes for that portion of usage. Removal of the entire Canadian wheat crop would impact on prices because we mostly trade into a food market. We are a very small producer but we are a major trader. I can't say the extent of a price impact. Removal of the entire Canadian canola crop would likely have less of an impact because there are substitutes. To give you an idea, the world produces over 300 mmt of oilseeds (compared to 7 mmt of canola in Canada). We know there are health benefits but that doesn't mean consumers wouldn't look to the next best alternative if the price moved out of line. What happens after you have a dramatic drop in production (from whatever cause)? Think back to 95/96. Production drops, the prices start to go up, buyers look to substitutes. Often that ends it. But if substitutes are tightening then those prices start to go up too. Farmers start to see better prices. That's the goal. But, then farmers switch acres, add acres, can afford more inputs -- the supply goes up and it all tumbles down. That's what creates the cycles. Farmers don't just respond here, but all over the world. And, they do it in different growing seasons. So if oilseed prices move higher into the fall, South American farmers would plant more and harvest before the North American crop gets seeded. Winter seeded crops get planted. So the world has 3-4 seasons of production in a year, not just the one we see here. What about the emerging exporters, such as Turkey, India, Syria, India, Pakistan, Hungary, Ukraine -- won't they respond to improved prices? How can you prevent that natural reaction around the world? Its a very difficult situation and no easy answers.

[nakodo]

Thank you for a well thought out message, I learned a lot and will ponder it. Nakodo

[jwright]

It sounds illogical, but in my opinion the most responsible way to raise farm commodity prices is to have a carbon tax on non-renewable resources. Higher prices for energy inputs would lower production, which would raise prices disproportionately and farmers would likely have a net benefit. The tax receipts could replace other forms of taxation or go to social programs like disaster assistance. And we would help to conserve a valuable diminishing resource.

[edbaker]

Hi, all,

Are you guys interested in pursuing a major new market for your grains?

I used to sell corn-fired heating stoves that would heat a fair sized house on slightly over a bushel of corn per day. Cheaply, in most years.

We used to say that we could beat the price of any heating system but gas - or wood that you cut yourself (southwestern Ontario). There are quite a large number of wood-burning heaters around here. But with gas, you hook up to the end of the pipe and pay your bill at the end of the month. Lazy person's dream.

A corn stove, similarly to a wood-fired one, must have corn hauled into the house to feed it. One has to pry a clinker out of the small firebox oftener than once a day, not a difficult task, but someone has to do it. So it must be an alternative heating system for any but dairy farmers, who must be at home twice daily.

A friend, who sold the first corn stoves in this area 12 years ago, is a sharp cookie and built his own stove, the only one to carry several patents and is certified - to burn wheat and rye as well as corn. It's been in operation for 8 years, with very few glitches and minimal demands for maintenance.

Those stoves should have been well received on the prairies where there are few hardwood trees to cut for fuel and natural gas is seldom available in rural areas. His budget didn't allow for major marketing programs.

With the increased price for gas and fears that it will go higher, we ask people why they would buy a heating unit where you must buy fuel from a member of an international cartel, when they can buy one that allows them to buy fuel from any of a hundred thousand farmers - and the operations of the international grain cartel will ensure that the cost of their fuel remains low.

Any comments?

Ed Baker eddbaker@yahoo.com