WHAT IS A DUAL MARKET?

[TOM4CWB]

I think it would be helpful to discuss what a dual market is, since some among us do not beleive it exists!

My understanding of a “dual market” is an open or individual marketing system, by free choice, competing against, a voluntary pool marketing arrangement that has been, by voluntary contractual agreement, formed for the mutual benefit of those who choose to be in this contracted pooled sales agreement.

Am I correct?

[chas]

Definition correct. In reality it is what we have for a market now, unstable and unsustainable pricing half the time. Look at stablity of farmers of the world no different than here because the open market controls our pricing.. We need to stablise pricing to stablise supply. FARMER CONTROLLED MARKETING AGENCIES WITH FAR LESS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. Chas

[TOM4CWB]

Chas,

I really hope Canadian Farmers understand that every time the government sinks a billion dollars into our grain industry, they want some form of control back for this investment!

I would agree that all governments need to get out of the subsidy game!

Every time we add subsidies, we grow more dependent on them, capatalize them into our business, and soon we cannot survive without them.

How do we remove government interference from the most basic requirement, food?

I see Australia is moving into a true dual market on barley July 1st 2001!

Is it time we had a vote to do the same?

[chas]

Tom4cwb you can't remove government from security of food but more cooperation in farmer contolled marketing boards is a real possible. In the open market when prices get to high the government will put on tariffs to protect supplies from leaving the country which has happen from time to time in different world countries in the past. Subsidises are countries protecting farmers when prices get to low. Now tell me who is actually being subsidised consumer or the farmer.
True dual marketing for the ABBoard, I bet it drives the price of our barley down on the world market.
As to a vote at this time, No, lets see what happens in Australia. There is to much misinformation out there on the topic to risk a mistake that would very likely be irreversible once committed. Chas.

[AppMan]

I have few questions that I am sure someone knows the answers to.

1) How many tonnes of wheat and barley are produced in the Maritimes.

2) How many tonnes of wheat and barley are produced in Quebec.

3) How many tonnes of wheat and barley are produced in Ontario.

4) How many tonnes of wheat and barley are produced in the Creston region.

5) How many tonnes of wheat and barley are produced in lower mainland BC.

6) How many tonnes of wheat and barley are purchased and exported under the EMFA.

7) How many tonnes of wheat and barley are produced and sold as pedigree seed.

8) How many tonnes of wheat and barley are produced and sold as domestic feed grain.

9) How many tonnes of wheat and barley are produced in the designated region and sold under the pooling arrangement of the CWB.


I know I could search the net somewhere and find these figures but figured someone would have them handy.

AppMan

[AppMan]

Here is an address below that will show you some historic numbers, including provincial production. It'll give you an idea of production of the different types of wheat - the numbers wouldn't have changed much in the last couple of years.

Appendix B at the bottom of this link will give you a look at the supply and breaks down the disposition by category for the different wheats and barley. Again, the numbers are similar for this year.

I don't have the numbers of the wheat or barley equivalent contained in export feed at this time, or of pedigreed seed exports. Perhaps if you surf around in the AAFC website, there may be some stats there.

Here's the address:
http://ats-sea.agr.ca/public/htmldocs/e2207000.htm

[AppMan]

Thanks Tom for the site address, it is a Stats Canada site.

Answers as best as can be achieved from Stats Canada site in mt,000.

1) Maritime production - 247

2) Quebec production - 484

3) Ontario production -1693

4) & 5) BC - 169 this has some overlap as it is the whole province

6) No Answer

7) Seed sales - 1418

8) No Answer

9) Exports & Domestic use 23570 (domestic use is 2621 of this number). some overlap as this is the whole country, not just the designated region.

6) & 7) however are clumped as feed, waste & dockage at - 14351 plus Industrial use of 363 for a total of - 14714

Considering the overlaps are equalized by treating them all the same, we come up with - pooled grains in the designated region at 23570
- exempt grains for other uses 18725
TOTAL 42295

Do these figures sound right, if so it appears there is a very specific use of the pooling system and it is not for the farmers benefit as only 56% of the grain is pooled and 44% is already exempt from the pooling account. The chunck that is controlled through the pooling arrangement happens to be for human consumption, I would conclude the arrangement is more for the purposes of controlling food supplies than for attaining premiums for designated producers.

Better figures may change the percentages somewhat, but not the trend or intention.

AppMan

[parsley]

I asked about the volume question on another thread, with no reply. The CWB had no problem disclosing the volumes and sales and destinations of the private transactions of organic farmers, and they even posted it on the CWB organic discussion paper on their website, There was no regard for the identifiability issue because of the small volume either. On the other hand, why are precise statistics for the millions of bushels that go through the EMFA not readily available from the CWB? Each shipment is supposed to have an CWB export license.

Parsley

[chaffmeister]

Well Parsley, I "backed into" an estimate of the grain being exported as a component of feed:

According to Ag Canada, in 1996 (the most recent census), total exports of animal feed products amounted to $534 million. Total sales of feed (export and domestic) were $4,320 million. This makes exports about 12.4% of the total.

Let's assume that all feed - whether export or domestic - is the same in terms of grain content (a stretch, I realize, but what the heck - without the real numbers we have to be creative).

Total feed/waste/dockage use of wheat in 1996/97 was 3.9 MMT (143 million bus). Feed use alone could be estimated to be 5% less, or 3.7 MMT (136 million bus). 12.4% of that is 459,400 tonnes (16.9 million bus).

Remember, we are assuming that feed rations are the same everywhere, which they aren't.

It's a start.

If thalpenny is reading this, I would like to hear your thoughts on this and other comments I have contributed to the thread on CWB Despatch.
cm

[TOM4CWB]

Well, very interesting,

Well, I now ask, can we agree that a Dual Market can exist, just as it exists in Ontario!

Is the CWB afraid of competition?

Does the CWB want to remain a stong and viable force, or does it want to continue its decline and destroy itself?

I ask this because I would like to work with other farmers through the CWB in 5 years, and not have to reinvent the wheel all over again!

Why is the CWB so afraid of change?

[TOM4CWB]

Where is the CWB when you want to talk to them?

Will you admit Tomh that we could have a dual market if we were willing to work around a few problems, and work together to solve them like Ontario has had to do?

[parsley]

Tom4CWB, You can probably find 5 CWB staff (5 for every 10 farmers), milling around at farm meetings, taking notes, avoiding questions, giving misinformation, quietly writing up per diem and mileage expenses.

You won't get a straight answer, a reliable answer, or a logical answer. And never on paper. That has been my experience, and I wish it wasn't.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsely,

Too bad the CWB wouldn't hold meetings in the rest of the designated area like the one on Monday the 5th of March!

I am told that even though CWB directors and staff will be at the Red Deer Lodge, at 7:00pm, in Red Deer, the CWB won't even tell anyone that the meeting is happening!

The CWB has told Jim Chatenay that tey will not pay for any off this meeting, but they are willing to buy supper for every farmer on the prairies.

Looks like they think if they feed our bellies instead of our minds, that this is the way to our hearts!

[TOM4CWB]

Tom4CWB, I think you nailed it at the very top of this thread when you gave your understanding of a dual market:

"My understanding of a “dual market” is an open or individual marketing system, by free choice, competing against, a voluntary pool marketing arrangement that has been, by voluntary contractual agreement, formed for the mutual benefit of those who choose to be in this contracted pooled sales agreement."

The point here is, as you very well put it, a dual market is an open market. There is nothing inbetween. The open market detracts from the pool, and dilutes the overall value by targeting the higher value markets first. It's misleading to portray that anything other than this exists.

Regarding the meeting held in Red Deer, Mr. Chatenay opted to hold that meeting in that fashion, and promotion for that meeting was consequently to come from his district communication budget. He declined to particpate in the Director meetings that the Board of Directors had put forward as a corporate initiative. So attempts to portray Mr. Chatenay as a martyr are not appropriate - he made his own decisions.

At these Director meetings, of which a listing of locations is available on the CWB website, farmers have the opportunity to ask their Directors questions. This is an important part of the democratic process, as it is a forum for farmers to gauge their Director's performance.

Tom

[TOM4CWB]

Tom,

There are many examples around the world of voluntary pooling. My farm is one of these examples. I pool my grass seed, and am not offended at all that someone else may get more than I do, If they get more, then they had a right to more returns than I did.

For those producers who chose not to pool with me and got less, they had the chance and chose not to so they should not be angry with me.

Pulses in Sask. in many cases are marketed the same way in voluntary pools, and are very good at maximizing returns to those who choose to participate.

There is absolutely no reason if the CWB is worth anything to us at all, that it cannot compete and thrive in a voluntary system! This is not an open market, this is a contract market with accountablity and responsibility given to each party that is willing and able to complete their part of the contract.

Jim Chatenay is right, the dual part is for big trucks. Voluntary marketing with respect and compassion for our communities and neighbours is needed!

You say Jim Chatenay didn't co-operate on Director meetings?

How much more would the ink have cost to have added a sentence telling people about the District 2 meeting on March 5th? Absolutely nothing and you know it.

Shame, that you were involved in intentionally punishing District 2 farmers, who were caught in the middle because they decided to back Jim with a 69.5% majority on the first ballot!

Please understand Tom that we are human beings with feelings out here, and that as your freinds in this multicultural society of ours, we think just a little differently than you.

Please understand that this does not make us right and you wrong, just like it does not make you right and us wrong.

I really hope you will read the meeting minutes carefully when they are posted, and understand that we really do think differently out here. And that is a really good thing, isn't it Tom?

Respectfully,
TOM4CWB