Milling Oats vs Milling Wheat

[Vader]

parsley,

Braying like a donkey suits you to a tee.

[parsley]

I've got to hand it to you vader, you made me really laugh.

Parsley

[avmayor]

Dear Agri-ville.com Forum User

Most of you have been long time participants and we would like to see you continue in the Agri-ville.com forums.

Please let's keep this forum educational. Making comments towards another is really not acceptable. This thread has many incidents of this.

These forums are basically provided as a free public service so farmers can help each other through thoughtful and considerate discussion.

Sincerely,

Mayor

[silverback]

I am trying to get educated, but I can never get my questions answered directly. How come?

[melvill]

Quite honestly, silverback, I share your frustrations with some of the discussions on the Commodity Marketing forum. Often questions are answered with rhetoric.

Charlie and I would like to steer the posts toward more fruitful discussion than the political stuff that is often here. However, when we try, we get little or no response.

I, personally, know of a number of producers who regularly watch these forums but don't participate because "it's too political". To those watchers: Please participate. Maybe you can help the moderators raise the level of discussion.

[agstar77]

You get your questions answered but possibly not the way you would like. I f we were all making a fair living from farming the politics would not be an issue . Since we all receive some government assistance political discussions are an appropriate part of marketing discussion. Removal of the 2 price wheat regime was political ,the creation of the CWB was political , the establishment and removal of the Crow rate was political. If you wish to improve the current marketing regime ,you must take part in the political process. Personal attacks are not acceptable but attacking someones view can be constructive if done logically.

[TOM4CWB]

Melville;

At our Alberta Barley Commission meeting today the CWB issue again came up as a major inhibitor of innovative value added barley used for human consumption.

Goes something like this.

A new innovative barley product is created for human consumption.

1. The barley grower grows under contract to the innovator.

2. The Barley grower sells to the CWB for Select Barley price; which is tied to the Malt Barley pool... plus a premium.

3. The returns to the barley producer, and cost to the innovator of the new barley product are not directly connected... a pool disconnect through the CWB has occured.

4. Everyone in the Malt Barley pool shares a miniscule amount of return... at the expense of the Barley Producer and innovator of this new barley product.

This disconnect can mean failure of the innovative new product... caused by the CWB single desk monopoly.

The CWB principal that those who do nothing, should share in the fruits and the work of those who created value, can only be discribed as a taking of property, or coveting if all parties are not doing this transaction on a voluntary basis.

Does this make sense?

[parsley]

I actually agree with you, agstar! Is this a new beginning?

Parsley

[melvill]

Tom, this is scarey - I don't disagree with some of the things you said, especially points 3 and 4.

My point about many of these posts is that, if we put as much energy into things that we have immediate control over - market and price risk management, among others - we could have some immediate effect on our farms.

Brenda Brindle uses an example of three different sized circles inside each other. The smallest one in the centre is the farm's "Centre of Control", in other words, its management (decisions). The next larger one (outside the small one is "Area of Influence" which is advocacy or producer association. The largest circle is "Outside of Centre of Control".

I wonder if many of our producers spend away too much time thinking and worrying about the outer most circle and not enough in the smallest or middle ones.

[silverback]

Some farms have been forced, through weather or other factors, to really examine how to get more efficient in the little circle. Now that process is never done, but now you can look outside of your circle and see that maybe things aren't as good as they could, or should be. Then when you see that the people in those other circles think things are just fine and it is ok to abuse the small circle for their own gain or survival, it makes people start to call for changes or improvements.

Most farmers are not looking to retire in the south of France (some do), we just want to survive and have some freedom.

[TOM4CWB]

melvill;

I agree; a marketing plan that is faithfully followed is an excellent management practice.

The SPE on Alberta Crop Insurance is a great instigator that puts wheels to a plan by forcing Alberta producers to allocate funds to risk management... and really think through a plan if skills for an alternate risk management plan are present in the decision making process.

It frustrates me to no end when the CWB spends millions of my money promoting the monopoly...

When the spending of my limited risk management resourses is slapping me in the face...

1. THe CWB takes their eye off the marketing ball; diverting their attention inward at how "beautiful" their monopoly system is.

Command and Control... farmers can't market Board grains effectively themselves... so government must do it for them.

I OBJECT.

2.The CWB is saying do nothing... "Let the monopoly do the marketing" which is to assure me that pooling is the most effective risk management strategy for my farm... which is double speak for sell a little grain equally each day over an 18 month period.

I prefer to sell on historical timing and pricing signals... not a pool price timing schedule. Plan to integrate market signals from as close to the end-user as possible... History has taught us this is an effective way to reduce risk and stabilise income and hopefully be profitable.

3. Pre-selling non-board grain on our farm opens doors with end-users... a direct investment on both the production side (our side on the farm) and on the consumption marketing side... that allows effective strategic implementation of a profitable marketing plan. The CWB many times prevents effective marketing signals from end-users from reaching my farm... instead replacing marketing signals with command and control signals like the Canadian Grain COmmission and Customs Canada Border Patrol regulations.

Not at all a good swap IMHO.

The Competitive nature of the Ag business means the non-board crops use CWB pricing as bench marks with which they compete with... many times initial prices (with the added uncertainty of Pool Return Outlooks) are principal factors in non-board pricing for the student of stingy, frugal profit based non-board grain purchaser.

There can be no doubt in my mind that a reasonable person would respond to these facts by saying... the CWB monopoly extends into all marketing sphere of influence... and decisions within the western Canadian "designated area".

I am back to square one and cannot avoid the CWB or its taking of property without the permission of many grain producers... our anger and outrage are frustrated by governments who passively allow the theft to continue!

[nw9flynn]

I do not have a strong opinion on the CWB either way. (Although with only a 50% call on the series-A for Durum I'm starting to lean towards the anti-CWB side.) I think that our farm would survive, if not do better without the CWB. But my point is this. Most farmers have become very dependent on the CWB. I think that if the board was taken away tomorrow more farmers would be forced out of the market place simply b/c of a lack of knowledge on how to market their grain.
I have seen more farmers lose money trying to market their lentils and ypeas in the last two years than people losing money on their board grains. Farmers holding back #2 LGL at 0.18lb only now to try to find thats bids for old crop #2 LGL are 0.09del or less, if the buyer will take it.
Currently there has never been as wide of a spread of income between farmers. Some are currently doing very well, and some can't pay their fuel bills. I beleive this is b/c some have marketed their grain well and some very poorly. Can you imagine what it would be like if the CWB didn't mkt some of their grain.
If we want to operate in a free market system that is fine. I am fine with bigger corporate farms. The question is, Is everyone else? There is no doubt that the CWB does hold back a few (myself included), but as a whole I think it does benifit.
Comments?

[Vader]

nw9flynn,

a comment on the durum. Canada and the US have grown a 8 Million tonne crop of durum. World trade is 6 Million tonne. Canada normally does about 60% of the world trade in Durum. How would the durum trade change in the absense of the CWB?

Would Canada trade more or less durum. Would you trade more or less durum from your farm? How would prices change?

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

Why not contract the Durum... like the Agricore United Bean plant? IP Canola contracts. No monopoly... yet those who invest are given a fighting chance to make a profit!

If the CWB were to contract a specific number of acres... then cut it off... they could market what was grown.

A single farmer on their own would be stuck, just like with IP canola, beans, the list goes on and on.

What we are doing now is insanity... and Durum is proof that the present CWB marketing structure is suicidal. Everyone is being sucked down.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

I note today the LDP's in the US states MT. ID. ND. MN. are all well above about .25USD over LDP's.

Further US farmers are not flooding the market... pushing prices below the LDP levels which would then subsidised by the US treasury. Not Happening.

The CWB simplistic theory about how the market works... does not hold water... one more time.