No Explaination? Anyone?

[craig]

Charlie I would suggest that the current malt barley situation is a prime example of how not to do business. I like many growers felt that the malt industry continues to squeeze producers with more requirements and more risk all being put on producers shoulders. At the same time malt pricing does not not reflect an identity preserved value over feed. In central Alberta I have been far better off when I can lock in a reasonable return for feed barley prior to seeding than chasing a prayer for little or no higher return for malt. I have a proven track record growing malt but have not felt it was worth it chasing that market. The malt industry needs to develop better working relationships with growers where both parties feel they have something to gain. With the CWB in the middle I don't see that happening.

[AdamSmith]

Mustardman,

You are correct, once the monopoly and regulatory provisions are removed from the cwb we will have a properly functioning open market in export and domestic human consumption wheat and barley.

Where the "dual" comes in is that legislation will create a new entity called cwbII and that entity will esentially be a voluntary pooling/profesional marketing entity.

You and many others may not like this but that is what it is and it will exist. So for the cwb and the single deskers to suggest that it can't exist are just plain WRONG.

The old cwb won't exist you're correct about that, but the way I see it to be opposed to creating cwbII and not even recognizing it's possible existance means that it's all about the need and desire to control others it's not about marketing wheat.

So just as this thread started by asking the question; What is so important about the grain grown on my farm, that yours cannot survive without it?

The answer is obvious silverback, your grain is not what is important to the cwb single deskers it's the ability to control your marketing activity and the marketing activities of others.

This isn't a wheat and barley issue, it's a control issue. So a cwbII without the power to control is useless to the left and that's why they can't acknowledge the existance of a dual market or a voluntary cwb or whatever you may call it.

[TOM4CWB]

Mustardman,

There are many "dual" markets in the world... all regulated by production contract... especially when they involve a pool. IP contracts in Canola specialty oils are a form of "dual" marketing... a good portion often has no normal basis or futures component.

TO stick one's head in the sand... and ignore Charlie's point..."the highest price normally gets the grain" is simply religious zelousness... and not marketing grain in a rational manner.

[agstar77]

A.S. ,it's always a power issue . The more grain you market the more power you have. The person marketing 1000 tonnes will get a better deal than the one marketing 100 tonnes. The organization that has a million tonnes to market will have more power than the 100 thousand tonne company. So there it is its all about power and control as you and t4 rightly point out. Is it fair maybe maybe not , but at this time it's probably the best system for the majority of producers. Is that the answer you wanted?

[silverback]

It doesn't come close to answering the questions at the start of the post.

Take a shot.

[wd9]

Silverback, the grain isn't pooled, the sales are.

[TOM4CWB]

WD9,

Actually the CWB claims itself some major benefits from pooling:

Transportation and costs relating to grain movement,

Grade blending at terminal position,

Blending of values of various kinds of wheat and barley within a pool,

Revenue sharing from interest churning projects that are claimed to create income, and

Costs relating to grain grown and sold OUTSIDE the "designated area" that must have administrative duties carried out (export licenses issued and mills and processing facility audits)... as well as these same duties for no-cost export licenses being issued for seed wheat and barley, Manufactured feed that is exported, and organic grain sales the CWB participates in that don't pay for themselves are also pooled and charged growers from the "designated area" even when the CWB Act requires them to be paid by the federal government itself.

[mustardman]

charliep sorry I took so long to get back had to finish hauling wheat and then off to coach kids hockey, anyways you were asking about malt bly and value of cwb. I still think that a single seller will return more than multiple sellers will . I know you might doubt the latest study- but it also says the same thing.

[wd9]

Tom agreed, I guess that is why it is a delivery contract not a sales contract.

Anyone with an ounce of business sense wouldn't agree to a sale without knowing the price, but we do it every year like sheep, albeit carefully herded and shackled sheep.

[chaffmeister]

Mustardman: let’s talk about the last barley study and what it says about the malt market.
For example, the study says:

For the 2002/03 crop year, Canada’s malting-barley exports fell sharply, totalling only 303,000 mt. This was due to the extreme drought and wet harvest weather in Western Canada that reduced significantly the region’s total barley yield and quality.
AND
Imports of malting barley that year were due largely to shortages in malting barley in Canada.

HOWEVER – anyone involved in the malt barley industry KNOWS exactly what happened. Because of the drought, feed barley prices climbed higher, but the malt barley PRO didn’t follow, making it more attractive to sell MALT-QUALITY BARLEY into the domestic feed market. The problem was not a lack of quality – an idea promoted by the CWB and suggested by the study – it was definitely and clearly an issue of the CWB not being able to provide the appropriate price signals to farmers to show what the maltsters were willing to pay (the PRO was diluted due to low-priced sales made early). Because the CWB itself knew it was challenged to get malt barley deliveries, it was reluctant to even offer malt barley to the maltsters.

It was this event that caused Rahr Malting management to (1) import Danish malt barley (at a huge premium over anything that anyone got paid in western Canada) and (2) openly criticize the CWB-system as it could now see how dysfunctional the system really is.

So – do I mistrust the latest barley study? You bet I do. This is just one example of many weaknesses in that sub-standard piece of work.

And Mustardman, you say “I still think that a single seller will return more than multiple sellers will”. I’ll give you this much - there’s an awful lot of THEORY that supports that “idea”. But the REALITY is that there is so much more involved to the equation here that I’m afraid it just doesn’t work with the CWB – particularly on barley.

[chaffmeister]

Forgot to mention - the problem the malt industry had back in 02/03 is happening again this year. Guys in the malt business tell me that the malt pool could've been about 3 million tonnes - but will likely end up around 1.8 million because the barley's going into feed channels and - again - the CWB can't compete. A rough guess given to me is that the loss of this business to the feed market is worth about $100 million to the farmer.

[FarmRanger]

I had about 30,000 of malt barley.
CWB December PRO for std select malt 145.84/tonne Alberta price.

Feedlot down the road 165/tonne.

$19.16 in my pocket for feeding malt barley to cows(cheques already cashed and made my land payment). I am thankful I have market choice.

Are there any Algerian maltsers buying from the CWB?