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).

[charliep]

Just to keep this thread going.

Parsley - I will leave the CWB comments/meeting you mention to other particpants. I owe you information on industry involvement (money deducted through) and maybe get some discussion going on your industry involvement concerns there.

WRAPper - To make my opinion known (maybe generate discussion), I am not a big fan of government production controls (acreage or intensity) - farmers can make decisions better on their own. If land is relatively poor quality, the farmer can make this decision to put to some other use. Feedback on rental (depending on community) is good land rents are high but poor quality stuff is getting dumped.

If government is to invest money, then I would favor (my opinion) providing incentives to private business (eg. bio fuels). The push is to create markets versus cut production.

The conservation reserve program is an example from the US. My understanding is CRP has taken a lot of land out of crop production that shouldn't have been there anyway. It has likely also provided ability to move more money into inputs for the productive land. The impact on US crop production has been minimal.

If you really wanted to have an impact on production, you would have the government announce another LIFT program similar to the late 60's. The issues that we face next years is wheat carryover will be mid to lower quality and need satisfy high quality customers and a risk Mother nature would sign up on the program (drought or whatever).

Hopefully the above is taken in the spirit and not as absolutes. I also hope others participate.

[AdamSmith]

Oh No, Not Another Dog and Pony Show!

I'm reminded of Dr. Phil's great words of wisdom. "So, How's that been working for you so far"?

This industry needs to embrace just two words. "Creative Destruction"

this ripped from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creative destruction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Creative destruction is the colourful expression introduced by the economist Joseph Schumpeter to describe his view of the process of industrial transformation that accompanies radical innovation. In Schumpeter's vision of capitalism, innovative entry by entrepreneurs was the force that sustained long-term economic growth, even as it destroyed the value of established companies that enjoyed some degree of monopoly power.

What more do you need to know?

[WRAPper]

Charlie

I certainly agree the free market approach is the best and that economics will dictate the viability of the usage for the land grains/grass/bush. But we can't say thats what happens in Canada with our differing and various leanings marketing structures and governmental policies.

I wasn't old enough when the lift program was used in the 70's others would have to fill me in on what transpired there Canada is not the force it was in the world grain trade in 1970 and from what I read the LIFT program was in place for 1 year and was deemed as unsucessful even then.

But what I am tired of are the constant stream of non functional government programs and Ad hoc payments. Despite the fact I cash the cheque like everyone else on here I do wonder if it's truly whats best for the industry.

The best idea I've heard is to do a complete mirror of all US programs in Canada but that won't happen. Perhaps in Alberta with the revenue insurance we see it a bit but to a somewhat diminished level.
Perhaps it's time to pull a New Zealand and let the chips fall where they may. At some point the question may have to be asked " The patient is on life support what do we do?"



It's always good to discuss all ideas with an open mind thats the only way forward.

Regards

[WRAPper]

Also I should have mentioned I am always a great supporter on new usages for ag. based products either ethanol , bio diesel ,bio plastics , etc
As long as they as economical feasible and make sense. They are starting too and will continue to and I believe we'll see some support for that industry coming forward from minister horner in the future.

[wmoebis]

WRAPper, the chips are already falling. Check out the auctions this spring. These are not retiring farmers,1/2 section farmers or even 1 section farmers. These are the guys that swallowed up small ? viable farms. Not to disrespect them for trying.
We were told buy large multi national CEO's and economists that this was the only way that agriculture could stay viable in Canada.
CP CN to told us they had to restucture to keep transportation viable. We let our polititions etc. buy in, at who's expense are they now viable. We aren't.
We let fert. and chem. companies into our collages and teach our kids that to stay viable we have to farm with chemicals and fert. to the max. Who is viable the chem and fert companies.
They have taken our kids away from the farm and given them the jobs. There is only so many acres of farm land in the world and these guys don't give a damn who's farming it as long as they are using there products. They would rather deal with 1- 100,000acre producer than 10,000- 1000acre producers.
Multi national grain companies said we have to rationalize to stay viable we let them rip down our viable grain system and build high troughputs that are now having to be replaced or competed with by producer car loading facilities. Who is viable? My closest elevator is 80 miles away where it used to be 6.
The new wave is value added. Try get some on farm value added going. All you will get from buerocrats is financing for research, if you are an accredited research station, or that you have to be big big big.
Every time the price goes up on one commodity grain, cattle, oilseed everyone jumps on board and we flood the market. The chemical companies, the fert companies, the machine companies show us the best way for them to make a buck and we jump to it.
The chips are falling. Who's going to be there to pick them up. Or who will be there to care as long as the multi national have cheap product to turn into food to sell to stay viable.