Comments on Agricultural Policy

[charliep]

With appologies for abusing my role as moderator, I found the following as a good disciption of ag policy issues.

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."
However, in big business and government, more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
1. Buying a stronger whip;
2. Changing riders;
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse;
4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride horses;
5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included;
6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired;
7. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse;
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed;
9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse's performance;
10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance;
11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses;
12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses; and of course...
13. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.

[crusher]

Are you calling me and my commodity buddies a bunch of dead horses? Ouch!

[charliep]

No. More like old ag economists who haven't had a fresh idea in years.

Maybe the message is the need for more fresh thinking.

I attended a strategy session last week. The first thing the facilator talked about was the following formula.

D times V times F equals change.

D is disatisfaction (no explanation needed).

V is vision (knowing what needs to be done).

F is first steps (taking the vision and commiting to actions - even if small steps).

[parsley]

charliep,
Your description sounds a lot like a Grain Vision stategy session. Have they decided to come up with a blue panel study? That's, er, visionary.

If Grain Vision did recommend a study , could a dog and pony show precede the study? One consultative meeting in each centre with the Visionary Thinkers in full frontal view. I can't wait to go to get my coffee in a styrofoam cup.

I think it's standing in the line-up, waiting for permission to say my name clearly into the microphone before I ask a question, that fills me with such a sense of renewed hope for farming. If your question's been approved, of course.

Nothing like exhaustive consultation over a period of a year or two, with the results summarized in short sentences in those nice plastic folders to dazzle the peasantry.

Just small steps, like you say. Maybe in '06, we can have the colors of the folders of the final reports in green, for example.

Fresh thinking is much too extreme, charliep. I'd limit my questions to how the new CWB options for organics works, as opposed to why the hell do farmers create all the wealth and are left with none, getting paid only after the accredited agencies and the CWB glinks on the payroll are paid.

The reigning Visionaries always seem sour when you ask.

Surely we all know that every grain company and every CWB employee WANT the status quo because their best cash cow is captive Wheat Board grain.

Farmers wants change because farmers are financially decimated.

Farmers need another study like a hole in the head.

If the vision out there is only about process meant to fill time, the leadership currently out there is not representing farmers charliep. That leadership is representing the other interests.

Parsley

[WRAPper]

WHAT a strategy session and I wasn''t invited,haha
I caught an interesting discussion on Rutherford on QR77 calgary today on a study that says many grains and oilseeds operations are not going to make it.(like they needed a study for that)
Charlie here's an idea I had (I'm somewhat noted for crazy ideas just ask Bill Dobson)
If the different levels of governments in Canada committed to a 10 year 500 million a year program to remove margin agricultural lands from production entirely and turn it into conservation areas (ie big grassland wildlife parks) would this be a better usage of public funds and in turn support the remaining lands used for ag production in Canada by increasing values of other commodities.
What I'm thinking is 500 million a year could likely buy 500000 acres of land in many areas (900 an acre 100 acre for grass seed and seeding) A 10 year program would take out 5 million acres from production in Canada. Now I know in many areas land is worth more than 900 an acre but there is lots of land worth less too.

This kind of thinking should get me abused a fair amount but...........

Thoughts anyone?

[charliep]

I have to be carefull with these emotion icons. I only highlight the first posting has as much to do with my frustration as a civil servant as anything else.

I will let the discussion go from here.

[carebear300]

charlie you should have been a professional chit disturber, stir the pot and then when everything gets going good and you for once in a bit of a corner you chicken out. Just the opinion of one old some what dumb and contankerous old farmer.

[charliep]

carebear300

A fair comment. I try to toe the line at least some on being a moderator.

I like (like many here) are frustrated with the slow progress on CWB changes. A consequence is a lot of time spent on this topic.

At the same time there is still money to be made at marketing planning and appropriate use of the tools. The difference between someone who made money in 2005/06 and someone who lost will be marketing (forward contracting early, use of other marketing tools like SPE/RI in Alberta, etc.). A point was made in this chat room that marketing is a competitive advantage for a farmer in a community and that is fair. Those that do do and those that don't talk. It is difficult if not impossible to get any conversation going on this topic.

The only other comment I will make is that farm organizations/individuals need to take a supply chain approach. I note that many organizations like the canola growers have been very successfull. A marriage made in heavan - NO but there are processes to work on the things they can agree on, ways of setting aside things that disagreed about but not critical at the moment and alternatives for dealing with contengious areas. My experience in both Alberta and Saskatchewan is that directors welcome input from the farm community and liase well with industry. Same comments with other farm groups.

[carebear300]

thanks charlie, well said. I hope you don't ever think that I don't appreciate your work on this site. But what I really appreciate is what you REALLY think, the same as everybody else. Now I will get back to what I like to do the best sit back and learn from all the different viewpoints on each of the issues. Thanks to everybody, always meant to say that, had a friend pass away the other day only 52, so have made up my mind to say what I have to say well I still have a chance.

[charliep]

I also had some deaths among friends/their family in recent days and it has shaken me up/caused me to pause.

I might note I am not all keen this morning as I am watching Great Britian and USA curling. I also curled last night (many problems hitting the broom). Will be in my favorite chair cheering Newfoundland (Canada) on at 9:30 am (morning off).

I am amazed by the shots that professional curlers make to both set up opportunities and to get themselves out of trouble. Marketing isn't so much different (or policy for that matter).