Manitoba CWB Plebiscite results

[charliep]

Interesting enough, the hog industry is also mentioned. Little if no feed barley is exported out of Manitoba (longest most expensive distance to port and grain has to pass by a lot of domestic livestock operations). The export market for feed barley is likely the most relevant for Peace River farmers so they will be the most concerned here.

I am also interested in comments on malt barley. One maltsters in Winnipeg (Dominion). Access to the export market mostly six row with the US/Minneapolis being the target market. Fusarium obviously an issue with six row acres being pushed east into Saskatchatchewan to avoid. Anheuser Busch is the big buyer with representation in Manitoba.

Perhaps one of the reasons Manitoba farmers like having malt barley under the CWB is they are able to take some of the price benefit from two row malt (most grown Alberta and Saskatchewan) redistributed to six row growers through the pooling process. A mute point given neither of us see the actual prices paid for malt barley by maltsters (domestic or export).

[chaffmeister]

Re: building a business case.

Latest data from The Federal Grain Monitor:

Average system costs for CWRS: $61.81/tonne
Average system costs for canola: $41.51/tonne

I used the "Netback Calculator" (www.netback.ca) for a farm near Edmonton; the costs to move and handle CWB Feed Barley was $53.11/tonne; for someone in western Manitoba, the cost is $69.93/tonne.
(Don't know what the average costs would be for the prairies but likely somewhere between these two - from what I see, likely higher than wheat.)

Seems to me if we had a system for wheat and barley like we have for canola, we could put about $20/tonne back into farmers' hands - even more on durum (more like $30/tonne).

Last crop year that would've been 425 million.

Using real data - not some economist's model - we can see that the way the CWB does business cost you guys an extra $425 million in 04/05 - not including the impact it had on non-CWB (like canola) prices and returns.

The CWB must get an average premium of $22.00 per tonne JUST TO COVER THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS.

Note to those that voted for the status quo (and all other CWB supporters): next time farmers are looking for federal "support" that requires tax dollars, don't be surprised if we non-farmer taxpayers don't support it. I believe in religious freedom - just don't expect me to pay you for it.

[AdamSmith]

Craig,

I don't think fusarium had any impact other than to previously create a bunch of anti-cwb grain farmers. Way back when the cwb told farmers to burn their wheat because of fusarium, turned out there was still a good market for it in ND, it was minimally discounted depending upon the percentage of "scab" in the sample.

What does have the biggest impact is something else that you don't have in Alberta. commie rags and commie jounalists like The MB Co-operator and John Morris and the (presumed to be heavily sponsored by the CWB) Farmers Independant Weekly. These two versions of Pravda have done more to influence farmers thoughts than anything else.

IMO, the opinion of the ag industry by too many MB farmers is not shaped by individual thought and analysis but by the editorial pages of these decrepit rags.

So that's why I think, considering that almost every MB farmer subscibes to one or the other if not both, the number who wanted to blow the cwb to kingdom come is quite encouraging.

So please don't forget about the sane 4000 or so. We need Alberta's help to remove the shackles.

[mbgrainfarmer]

35% of so called voters still just don't care, this is the problem. Our M.D. had a plebiscite on a rec tax and a non vote meant you were in favour of the increase, fixed the problem of voter turn out. Since the Feds are in favour of market choice the non votes in the Federal Plebiscite should go to Market Choice, fixes the problem.

[wd9]

Ok simple question. Do you all feel the national plebiscite is a plebiscite for the government to determine the majority and govern based on the herd, or to use the information and govern to allow the freedoms of the minority - regardless of the outcome of the results?

[AdamSmith]

IMO, wd9, it's the latter. But it's easier to pass legislation with the minority being 40% than being 15%. So even thought these minefields aka plebicites are a pain in the rear, they will help get a clearer picture of the true landscape. I do believe the feds see it as a "rights" issue not a "majority says so" issue. So hopefully we'll end up where we should be even if it's going to be a very painful and distasteful jouney.

[Lifer]

I am concerned when the term plebiscite is used in this "polling" of a portion of the population.

To know where the "herd" wants to go don't you have to ask the whole herd?

I think these "plebiscites" show litte respect to the others in the chain and mean very little to having a good system.

[wd9]

Moooooooo!

[just_wondering]

Strahl said
"We’re going to have a plebiscite, it’s going to be a fair question with as big a list of producers as we can get.

IMHO the minister should work on having a list that legitimately represents who grows the grain not being so inclusive their should be minimum thresh-holds on who gets a ballot. ie:
40 tonnes does not make you a farmer
As well as preportional voting One tonne one ballot is this a corporation or co-op

This whole issue is just designed to make farmers keep fighting each other and not think about real federal responsibility CAIS/crop insurance/WTO

[just_wondering]

J-man
I would suspect that most farmers got into the industry through family money, and learned at their father/grandfathers knee
To quote my own father 'If I teach you everthing I know and you know anything yourself you sould be smarter than me" That is why Joe would be going to school.
re: my last post above many smaller farmers I know that hate the CWB disagree and think that they should have an equal say in the modernizing of the CWB II . I just don't agree with them