reminds me of why I left

[ivbinconned]

Here is a story that for someone like me who has been out of the grain growing business for 6 years comes as a bit of a shock but maybe for you all, it is all to familiar.

A young neighbor of mine with a wife and three kids grew a good clean 10,000 bushel (76 bushels of dockage) crop of barley that was sent away and accepted as malt! 5 super “B”‘s!

It was all shipped.

When it was delivered it was declared feed and 3 % heated!

After $8600 rail freight deducted as well as trucking, and other deductions he received an initial cheque for about $1600!

Wow … what would we do with out the “wheat board?

[parsley]

ivbinconned,

Why don't farmers who have a contract with the CWB add written additions to the contract?

Add to the contract margin, initialled:

"This malt barley sample, that represents this shipment, has been officially graded by the CGC, and
cannot be redesignated nor altered."

Why should conventional farmers just swallow what the CWB dishes out to them?

Have farm groups/individuals demand that the contracts reflect changes that favor farmers.

Parsley

[melvill]

In my mind the interesting issue here is who sampled the barley, who selected it - a malster or an exporter - and who rejected it.

Finally, where did it go after it was rejected. Did it go to the feed barley pool or did it go to the non-Board market?

[parsley]

Melvill,

Obviously the contract was written to allow an escape route, isn't that the problem? If the contract was ironclad, and it was a rotten maltster, he has to face a courtcase /and/or/bad publicity with other farmers avoiding contracts with him.

So the way I see it, the contract has to be customized. The contract has to legally reflect what the farmer has grown and offered, doesn't it melvill?

Barley... legally defined, with specs, with official grading, with a contract addendum that doesn't allow re-grading, or changing the specs. ie. If you sold officially tested 13.1% moisture barley, you didn't send heated grain.

ivbinconned's scenario has been repeated many times, from what I hear.

The players don't seem to change, so the farmer's side of the contract should. Farmers should be proactive. Look after your business, or someone else does, and it will not be in your interest.

I would add a payment due date on the contract as well.

Have to contact the Malster and talk with him, and review the changes in the upcoming contracts so there are no surprises for him either. He needs you for supply and you need him for demand.

Neither one of you need the CWB.


I can't imagine one CWB bureaucrat stepping up to defend a farmer (unless they met at a Liberal fundraiser).


Parsley

[melvill]

parlsey, I don't disagree with some of the things you said. That's why it's important to know who probed the bins and how they were probed, who selected the barley and who rejected it.

If the potential purchaser probed the bins and then rejected the loads, that suggests a problem. There needs to be accountability all the way up and down the chain from prober to selector to evaluator at point of delivery.

[charliep]

Perhaps the important point is the relationship (and liability) is between the farmer and the maltster (or exporter - not clear from the thread).

What role does the CWB serve in a farmer malt barley contract in the case of sale to a domestic maltster? Similar question a export sale of malt barley? Pricing cop on the sale side. Determines how proceeds from malt sales are distributed to farmers (payment structure). Selection? Ensuring delivered product meets quality specifications? Market development? Logistics of movement?

[silverback]

If the grain companies are only agents to secure product for the CWB, is it not logical that if a product is accepted by a grain company for malt, then the board should live up to that acceptance contract?? If it gets rejected at delivery it should be sent back to the producer to find another market - no?

[parsley]

charlie and melvill,

This issue boils down to ownership.

Not possession.

Farmers initially grow and own the grain, and have possesion.

The CWB becomes the legal owners of the grain, through contracts, with farmers often keeping possesion until shipping time.

The way it is now, the CWB takes ownership (check who signs your cheque) and makes all the spending decisions (cleaning at port, demmurage, shipping etc, meeting with the malsters etc.)After that ownership legally passes from the farmer to the CWB, the farmer has lost every advantage he has for managing his contract and maximizing profit.

That is why I am saying when the CWB sends silverback the bloody contract to sign, silverback should doctor it up how with his need. "Delivery before".... or "Specifications of grain not interchangeable" or changeable....or "freight shall not exceed $x".

If agstar loves the Board's prices, he'll enjoy not negotiating with them over the contract terms. If ivbinconned feels he's learned something from his neighbors, he'll become a contract expert

In my world, the malt barley contract must be made between the owner-grower silverback and the actual malster, in order that the contract can be 'managed' in the interest of silverback.

Surely you know that the CWB have "no duty of care " to farmers.

Couldn't the Board legitimately argue that the farmers no longer own the grain, therefore who did the grading, the drinking, or the piddling is immaterial?

Doctoring up the CWB contract you make with the Board will;
1. signal disatisfaction
2. Provide some legal contract evidence. (14.2 protein, FN 324, moisture 14.1% and so on)
3. Will provide farmer feedback guidelines for the Board to work within. ie transportation costs. Does the CWB love to give Paul Martin a lucrative shipping contract, right from Paul Martin's shipping office in downtown Winnipeg? If your contract states that the contract is valid only IF transportation will not exceed $$$.....


Your issue is with the Board.

Parsley

[charliep]

Parsley

Agree with what you have said. I note is still a chicken and egg situation. Which comes first - the CWB contract or selection by a malster/exporter (the CWB is not in this business). Going back further, I note there are needs for malt barley buyers to do variety specific production contracts and special requirements around agronomic practices, recordkeeping needs and verification. Again, the CWB is not involved.

Other than the contract you mention/operations of the malt barley pricing pool, what other benefits/services does the CWB provide the supply chain that moves product from the farm to the maltster (perhaps even the beer drinker)?

[melvill]

Further to Charlie's comments, that why I asked who did the probing and who selected it in the first place.

[parsley]

The Board will NOT allow the maltster to deal directly with farmers OR they have the legal right to shut down the maltster(who then becomes the "works for the general advantage of Canada").


The Board becomes owner of the grain.
The Board contract comes first. Squarely first. No chicken/egg here, charliep, just dead duck malt barley growers.

As maltsters become more interested in identity preserved, the CWB's only reason for being is as heavy, heavy baggage.

You are worried about who does the probing, what color was the paper, who took your wife out to dinner, or who got a free trip to Winnipeg to the CWB weather office?

Just look at who issues your malt barley cheque.

Parsley

[silverback]

Are you saying that if a farmer is told his grain is accepted for malt and he ships it and then it gets downgraded to feed, then he has not had a contract broken somehow??

After reading these comments from everyone, I would think that he could hire a lawyer and sue the company or the CWB for breach of contract somewhere along the line??

Even a verbal contract is valid is it not? Please correct me if I am wrong, it won't hurt my feelings for sure, I have been wrong before.(once)

[parsley]

I think that every farmer who can prove that his malt was not feed, was not tough, etc. and has the proper contract can sue the Board.

I don't know what the present contracts that farmers sign really stipulate, but if I was a betting man, I's bet that the contracts are all designed by the Board, for the Board, and punishes the farmer

Parsley

[ivbinconned]

Thanks guys for all your comments...my neighbor spends little time on this venue buy I will draw his attention to this thread. Thanks again.

------------------------------------

The last crop of malt barley that I grew I recieved about $3.75...can't remember the year. The spot price anywhere U.S. was about $8.50!!

I asked a rep from Canada Malt (Board customer) what they paid the Wheat Board for my product...he said about $3.75???

I expressed disgust and then he proceeded to lecture me and a few other producers that we should be satisfied with what "the Board" (my buyer) (something wrong with this picture?)does for us...I wasn't...and quit growing board grains!

[parsley]

But ivbinconned, poor old Canada Malt cannot sneeze without asking the Board, because they are tied by the CWB Act as "designated as a work for the general advantage of Canada".

Now that is East Berlin stuff.

So if you start buypassing the Board, and dating a new market, Canada Malt is stuck dancing with the Board.

Now that's scarey for any corporation.

It's coming though! Young Farmers are moving away from the Board in droves.

Get a barley contract and see what it says.

We have a contract lawyer in the family, so it doesn't get me too uptight to read fine print anymoe.

The worst that can happen is you're wrong.

Parsley