• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FEAR... grain giants will Profiteer

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    FEAR... grain giants will Profiteer

    Farm groups fear American grain giants will profiteer if wheat board fails

    EDMONTON, Jan 07, 2007 (The Canadian Press via COMTEX) -- Alberta's beef producers already know what happens when multinational food giants dominate the market. Now, with the future of the Canadian Wheat Board in doubt, there are fears of diminished profits if U.S. grain buyers are left to do the same thing.

    "If the federal government is able to kill the only real Canadian, farmer-owned marketing arm, which is the wheat board, then we would be faced with the same situation that the beef producers are now," says Stewart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union.

    Canada's beef packing industry is dominated by two huge U.S.-based companies, Cargill and Tyson Foods, both with slaughterhouses in southern Alberta. Cargill also has one of the largest cattle herds in the country.

    This allows the company to buy from itself to guarantee a steady supply of beef. Farm groups and producers say this tactic gives Cargill an advantage over ranchers trying to get the best price for their cattle.

    In 2004, several farm groups pushed unsuccessfully for a law to forbid major meat packers from owning cattle to prevent them from using their own herds to manipulate prices.

    The slaughterhouses argued that they need to own some cattle to ensure they have animals to fill their kill lines when ranchers choose not to sell to them.

    Alberta Agriculture Minister George Groeneveld dismisses the possibility of this scenario happening in the grain market.

    The fears are simply a throwback to a time when farmers were squeezed by grain barons hungry for profits in the days before the Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935, he says.

    "There's certainly some elder farmers out there that are still actively farming that have not forgotten what happened in the 1930s," says Groeneveld. "That was a different day and a different time."

    Today's farmers are highly sophisticated in the way they track grain prices, he says, and many want the freedom to sell their wheat and barley outside the wheat board's monopoly.

    "These guys are pretty sharp, they're on the computers daily with their marketing interest," Groeneveld says. "It's not as though they're getting blindsided because of lack of knowledge of what's out there."

    But the head of Alberta's largest farm group says he's also nervous about what will happen if the federal Conservative government's plan to end the wheat board's monopoly over Prairie wheat and barley sales leads to the wheat board's demise.

    "I believe that most farmers in Western Canada certainly do not want to see the wheat board go out of existence," says Rod Scarlett, president of the Wild Rose Agricultural Producers.

    "Really, we're down to two major Canadian grain companies," says Scarlett, referring to Agricore and Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. "If we lose either one of them, our grain industry is really going to be dominated by international corporations."

    Federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl insists Prairie grain farmers are more likely to flourish once the wheat board's monopoly is lifted. He says this has been the case with the easing of marketing restrictions on other farm commodities, including beef and pork.

    "Where farmers are losing their shirts is on board-controlled grain," Strahl says. "It's when (a commodity) comes out of the control of the board that real growth takes off."

    The grain industry has rarely experienced the wild price swings that have occurred in the beef industry as a result of the mad cow crisis.

    But profiteering in the beef industry has been widely publicized. Cattle ownership by Cargill and Tyson resulted in the firms getting $45 million of the $400 million in mad cow compensation from the Alberta government a few years ago.

    Alberta Auditor General Fred Dunn said this drove down cattle prices and helped the companies triple their profits.

    Art Macklin, a former wheat board director, cites recent examples of what could happen with grain prices if private buyers are left to dominate the market.

    "We had a surplus in durum for the last two or three years," says Macklin, who operates a mixed farm in northern Alberta. "If the wheat board had not regulated the supply into that market, we would have driven down prices.

    "That's exactly what will happen if the big companies control the market and we have a surplus," he said. "They will not manage supply for the benefit of producers. The weakest seller will then set the price."

    Mustardman;

    How Ironic... the CWB did both with durum... they stopped our grain from moving... and drove the price down!

    Forced collectivisation.

    A tour was given of the most successful factories in the Soviet Union!

    The factory tour leader boasted:

    In our first year we produced 500 units,
    In our second year, 5000 units,
    In our third year, 100,000 units,
    and In our fourth year, we expect to produce 500,000 units!

    As the tour ended... the factory elevator broke down and stranded them.

    One of the tourists asked the factory tour leader, what do you produce in this factory, so many things were breaking down I couldn't tell?

    He answered: "Out OF Order" Signs.

    Two Border Gaurds are standing on the Berlin Wall.

    One Guard says to the other: Are you thinking what I am thinking?

    The other says: YES.

    THe first says: Well then, I am going to have to arrest you!

    #2
    Ethanol: economic help or hindrance?
    http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/0/6/87709660.html?mpop http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/5/5/87653355.html?mpop

    Jan 07, 2007 (The Wichita Eagle - McClatchy-Tribune Business News via COMTEX) -- Ethanol.

    Is it an energy engine bringing prosperity to rural America and freedom from foreign oil? Or a grain-eating monster threatening skyrocketing food prices, world market chaos and environmental disaster?

    Reality is somewhere in between the two polar views, say market analysts, scientists and renewable energy experts.

    Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Dick Lugar, R-Ind., just introduced legislation to push the industry to 12-fold growth by 2030, calling for a new Renewable Fuels Standard of 30 billion gallons by 2020 and 60 billion gallons by 2030. The current production is about 5 billion gallons.

    Also this week, the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington-based environmental think tank, called for a moratorium on new ethanol plants, warning that the government has vastly underestimated the amount of corn that will go to ethanol production and is unprepared to deal with the consequences.

    In short supply

    Lester Brown, head of the institute, said that plants already in production or under construction will gobble up half of the nation's corn crop in 2008. He predicted that skyrocketing grain prices will increase the cost of food to the point of supermarket riots and will create chaos in world markets.

    "We're entering a new world, one where the price of grain is moving upward toward an oil equivalent price," Brown said. "The demand for corn created by ethanol is increasing not just corn prices, but all grain prices."

    He said his data on corn demand comes from a comprehensive list of all ethanol plants now operating, under construction or in expansion, and those likely to be started and completed before the end of the 2008 harvest.

    He said his results show that the industry will require 139 million metric tons of corn in 2008, half of the nation's projected harvest and more than double the consumption shown in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 10-year forecast from February 2006.

    "We could see a consumer backlash against ethanol when it drives up the cost of food," he said.

    Industry and government leaders, however, dispute not only EPI's numbers but its assessment of the consequences of using grain for ethanol and of higher grain prices.

    In reality, they say numbers from the Economic Research Service of the USDA show grain costs have little relationship to the cost of food. For example:

    --The total farm component of the American food dollar is 19 cents, down a penny from a year ago.

    --The corn in a $2.79 box of cornflakes is valued at about a penny.

    --Corn prices increased $1 a bushel from 2005 to 2006 without a noticeable impact on the price of food.

    Research continues

    Scott Kohl, director of research for ICM in Colwich, the nation's leading designer of ethanol plants, said it is true that the nation's projected demand for ethanol cannot be met with grain production.

    That's why ICM's research division has doubled in the last 12 months and is projected to triple from its current size in the coming 18 months, he said.

    "We are working hard to meet the challenge of the future, which will be to make production of ethanol from cellulosic sources commercially viable," he said.

    In the meantime, he said, high grain prices are more of an economic boon than any cause for alarm because they create prosperity for farmers and eliminate the need for farm subsidies that have drawn wide criticism in recent years.

    Market analyst Wes Beal, with Perryton Equity Exchange in Oklahoma, said higher grain prices could actually benefit the world economy as a whole.

    "Higher grain prices will simply stimulate production in areas that are not now producing," he said. "A good example is the Black Sea area where we haven't seen wheat in years. Now with wheat prices hitting $5 a bushel, suddenly we're seeing wheat coming out of that region again."

    He said he expects market forces to level out the prices.

    Analyst John Nalivka with Sterling Marketing agrees.

    "There will be some impact of increased corn costs during 2007," he said. "But as the price of oil drops, so does the competitive price of ethanol. And that means the price that plants can afford to pay for corn drops."

    Beal and Nalivka were both critical, however, of the impact federal subsidies for ethanol production will have on the livestock industry.

    "The 51 cents a gallon subsidy to refiners in essence gives ethanol a $1.50 per bushel advantage in buying corn," Beal said.

    "If Congress wants to hasten leveling off the market price of corn, the best answer would be to kill that subsidy."

    Reach P.J. Griekspoor at 316-268-6660 or pgriekspoor@wichitaeagle.com [mailtogriekspoor@wichitaeagle.com].

    Copyright

    Mustardman:

    A Lady in Communist East Germany goes into a shop with empty shelves everwhere.

    She rings the bell and the shop keeper comes out... she asks, I see you don't have and cheese... when...

    The shop keeper interrupts her and says:

    Oh no, we are the shop that has no meat, the shop with no cheese is across the street!


    Two men on the street meet... and the one without toilet paper sees the other guy has a nice roll of toilet paper.

    He is very angry and asks where the other guy got toilet paper from, because he couldn't buy any anywhere!

    The guy with the toilet paper says... leave me alone... I just got mine back from the dry-cleaners!

    Comment


      #3
      Imagine that? People might have to pay a bit more for food! What percentage of the total North American consumer dollar goes for food? How much of that small number goes to the primary producer?
      Its real simple...if you want to eat pay what the ethanol company is paying?
      The subsidy thing, hopefully, should be a short term thing to get the plants up and running? No different that the royalty holiday for tarsands projects?
      With a legislated blend in place...ethanol and bio deisel will reach a price that everyone is comfortable with? I don't think it is the duty of the farmer to produce food at below the cost of production so the urban consumer can continue to have money for the "real necessities" of life like the exotic vacation, the SUV, the motorhome, the boat, the big screen tv, etc.?
      Things have to start balancing out.

      Comment


        #4
        T4CWB Okay I,m laughing , I,m laughing
        good jokes, but seriously Tom I think we would all like to have U.S style open markets. Especially if we had a U.S style farm bill. ha ha !

        Comment


          #5
          There's no doubt that our friendly neighborhood multinational grain company will take it to the average grain producer. Besides that if you farm less that 10,000ac good luck getting delivery...you'd better have lots of storage for this open market wheat. I already see it when I'm in my local Cargil, unless you owe them alot of money or farm alot of land, you are at the bottom of list when comes to grain delivery.

          Another intresting note however. If another penny from very beer sold in Canada went directly back to the producer it would add an extra $57 million to producers pocket (approx. $3.30/bu). That always gets me worked up when I pay $5.50 for a beer when I decide to go out for a night on the town. Even more frustrating is the fact that the guy who makes the bag the bread comes in makes more that the farmer who grew the wheat...so excuse me if I don't have any sympothy for people who complain about paying more for food...maybe I the consumer doesn't want to pay more for food they should make sure the dollar they pay goes to the person that deserves it.

          Comment


            #6
            I still have 80% of this years wheat production in storage now. It was an average crop.

            Why would I need even more without the cwb?

            Ever been to the US? Ever compare the on farm storage between them and us?

            Comment


              #7
              ado089
              There is two ways to get Malt for your barley.

              1 Grow good, consistant quality.

              2 Owe the grain company enough money they will to give you malt, to collect.

              Comment


                #8
                Just to clairify my previous statement the $3.30/bu is an additional 3.30 on top of the current price. Getting malt had never been a problem on my farm. Getting it delivered is the challange.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Do you feel there is a way that we could go beyond the grain companies and CWB straight to the brewers/millers and get them to collect a direct surcharge for producers.

                  All retail outlets collect taxes for the gov't GST/PST. Some truckers have a fuel surcharge beyond normal frieght rates.

                  I think that producer returns is the main common goal of all farm groups and we could maybe get on an equal playing field here and see eye to eye on one thing.

                  After the first couple of brewskis the consumer won't even notice or care.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    This is what EU and US subsidies do They redistribute the profit. Tax payed the ones who profit from my produce is payed back to me in what you call subsidies. A system which makes the rich pay more for their food than the poor has a lot going for it in my opinion. Pity the principle seems to have be lost in the words and figures.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I proposed this idea to the CFO of a local brewery, they wouldn't even consider it...I wouldn't call it a subsidy so much as a levy or a farm diversification incentive. It's all about nomenclature.

                      Comment

                      • Reply to this Thread
                      • Return to Topic List
                      Working...