No Explaination? Anyone?

[charliep]

While you are looking at surveys, check the CWB one from this past spring. The CWB own survey would support chaffmeisters thinking. May have trouble finding original version as seems to have disappeared off the website with a santized version replacing it. I am sure a CWB farm business rep. can find for you.

[charliep]

Page 25 and 26 if you need help finding.

[HFL]

Chaff - Thanks for setting the record straight on the Alberta vote.

[mustardman]

The marketing team that came up with the 1995 Alberta barley question do you think they were the same group who wrote the referendum question for Quebec ???
Even our new group brought together by the conservatives to push marketing choice has given up on the phrase "dual marketing" they know as well most informed people that there is open market or there is cwb.
That is why the Alberta question was flawed then as it would be today but after spending over 2 million dollars to try and end the monopoly they and the feds will no doubt use the same flawed questions as before and get the same flawed answers .

[mustardman]

Wilagro said earlier that dual marketers are closed minded, Mustardman sounds like the you guys are closed minded.

Mustardman, wilagro, read Tom4cb article about malt barley on a different thread. Can you expalin it to me??

[charliep]

There is a dual market today in barley. An open market for domestic feed barley and an export human consumption. The law of one price applies - the market that pays the highest price gets the grain.

I note the supply chain issues in the malt barley market. The issue today in malt barley is not price - it is the ability to get the signal through to farmers that would encourage malt barley contracting/delivery at prices above current feed value. I would encourage you to share with us what value the CWB brings you in the malt barley market.

[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.