National Farmers Union

[kamichel]

Got a yellow piece of paper in the mail from the NFU. What a pile of crap.
Crap1-They state the Federal gov't is intent on burning down the CWB.
Crap2-They say this plebiscite on barley will determine whether the CWB survives.
Crap3-the real question in front of you is this: Do you want the CWB to exist or not?
Crap4-Delayed CWB price adjustments- holding back your money unnecessarily.
Crap5-CWB gets 77cents per bushel more for our 6 row malt than multiple sellers would.
Crap6-CWB gets 88cents per bushel more for our 2 row malt than mutiple sellers would.
Crap7-CWB puts over 10 dollars per acre extra in Western Canadian farmers pockets every year.
Crap8-The barley vote options are intended to deceive and mislead.
Crap9-We deserve a check for 150 dollars to speak on farmers behalf.
Crap10-Lots more crap but I am now up to my chin in crap so I must stop.

[kamichel]

OOOPs crap 10 is not crap

[Braveheart]

In our area NFU stands for No Future Union.

[jensend]

i'm not a member and i don't agree with a lot of their policies but they certainly have identified some of the problems. from this perspective it makes the cwb issue somewhat irrelevant.



http://nfu.ca/briefs/2003/Myths_PREP_PDF_TWO.pdf

http://nfu.ca/new/corporate_profits.pdf

[parsley]

jensend, I agree with you that the NFU are trying very hard, and that they have identified what some of the problems are, but I don't think they have identified what causes the problems.

A bunch of dead chickens in the coop doesn't necessarily mean there's a weasel. Sometimes it's the fat cat.

Look carefully at what the NFU identify:

1. "Farmers’ profits haven’t just disappeared; they’ve been taken".

2. "The farm crisis didn’t just happen; it was caused."

3." The family farm isn’t dying; it’s being killed."

Keep in mind that all this has happened under the watchful eye and guidance of the CWB, jensend.

Then the NFU names the culprit:

"And the perpetrations of this destruction are the agribusiness corporations who are using their market power to extract profits that would otherwise end up
on our farms."

"Farmers can’t make a living because agribusiness giants insist on making a killing."

There you have it. The NFU lay the blame SQUARELY on agribusiness. They want more CWB, in fact they don't even notice the fat cat in their bins, because they have grown so accustomed to him.

So how does that come about one might ask.

If you read the annual reports of Weyburn Inland Terminal, and Agri-core United etc. the EASIEST and BEST MONEY they rake in is CWB-grains money.

CWB grains means easy money. Ask any terminal.

And that is why you do not hear one single peep from any any of the corporations...the unprepared are terrified of losing their cash cow, but the lean and mean ones have a contingency plan. They're smart.

I am not saying that the CWB is the only reason all multinationals make money, but I am saying that this is ONE aspect farmers can actually change, in a way that will put more cash in the farmers' pockets.

The CWB acts as the grain catcher for the multinationals, as the negotiator with your money, and the CWB/Multis have a mutually benefitting affair...one gets cash on the financial sheet and the other get a job.

The NFU want to move away from free enterprise, they want supply management, and some I have even spoken with, embrace state farms like China enforced.

Force. Fines. Jail.

Any organization who wants to jail you for trying to sell what you grow depends upon force to make them money.

That is exactly the kind of organization I want to avoid.

Parsley

[jensend]

parsley i agree that the multi's will take advantage of the cwb and its inefficiencies but if the cwb goes (and i don't raise grain, board or otherwise) the multi's aren't going to leave the gained efficiencies on the table for the producer. they haven't until now and they don't look like they are ready to start anytime soon. the threads here regarding fertilizer prices point out the biggest problem with canadian agriculture: market power on one side of each transaction whether it's farmers buying inputs or farmers selling grain. this has been happening for decades and over the last ten years the tipping point has been crossed. you have to at least observe that as farmers have lowered their costs their profits have been eroded even further. looking at it from further back, farming in western canada (and a lot of other places) has not been a sustainable industry because the number of people it supports is reduced and the profits are also lower (when they exist). before this will ever change people will have to admit the nature of the problem, identify the cause from an objective point of view and then find a solution. i do know that trying to farm like americans and competing with them for all inputs (other than land) is not the solution because the canadian farmer assumes a lot more risk than his counterpart south of the border.

[wedino]

I'm glad you mention WIT, Parsley. Just very recently they chartered a bus & toured the cwb at Winnipeg & provided a banquet for 500 people (cwb staff?). This must be a slap in the face to most of the shareholders, but it certainly proves your point, Parsley. Management at WIT knows what side their bread is buttered.

[parsley]

jensend,

If you take a wide view lens of farming, farmers have chased bushels to put money in the pocket.Volume. More acres. More bu/acre. Volume.

It's not working anymore, cowboy.

Not going through the Board allows farmers to chase PRICE instead of volume.

Going aftr buyers who will pay more. Build relationships. Valued relationships. Price is where farmers can gain.

That solves the inputs problem for the farmer as well. More dollars? less acres. less inputs. less taxes.

Naturally, if you sell ferilizer for a living the suggestion is er...grim, indeed.

I'm a farmer.

Parsley

[parsley]

PS

The CWB would negotiate their grandmothers gold teeth with the MN's so they can keep their jobs.

The CWB has proven their negotiation leaves money on the tale for MN's.

So I'm not allowed to?

Change will be better than the status quo; it does provide opportunity.

Grow up and leave home.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Jensend,

If you are truly and independant thinker, and are a 3rd party observer, Please think about this.

Farmers of North America (FNA) are allowed to break the "Agribusiness Monopoly" and arbitrage prices to growers on inputs. Our W. CDN Conservative MPs have been VERY supportive of this monopoly buster.

It is crystal clear that organisations like FNA, UFA, Federated Cooperatives are not only profitable... they are thriving and growing. None of these folks have a "single desk"... yet they regularilly arbitrage down corporate profits of multinationals and large Canadian Companies.

Why do the NFU members just not use these opportunities to line their pockets with the "fat of the land" by using one of their OWN cooperatives?

And what about using a real cooperative like UFA, or Federated Cooperatives or some new entity to do the exact same thing in grain retailing/handling?

Simply dealing with a partner of choice who will return these "massive profits" to a grain growers own pockets... should not be a concept difficult to understand or execute... should it Jensend? Where exactly is the down side in this?

[wilagro]

Simply dealing with a partner of choice who will return these "massive profits" to a grain growers own pockets... should not be a concept difficult to understand or execute... should it Jensend? Where exactly is the down side in this?

Tom, if you think that these "new" so-called partners are going to return any part of their "massive profits" to YOU, then YOU are dreaming in "TECHNICOLOR as they used to say.

These "new" partners will just be the "old" partners unchained and less regulated than before.

[craig]

Wilagro
I'm still looking for that partner who is willing to return these massive profits to me. When it comes along I will give it my total support. Your squeeze me till I die theories are not something new. If they were totally true all non board grains would be long gone.

[jensend]

i guess what it comes down to is how many choices do you need to have a price efficient market where profits are distributed 'equitably' through the value chain. i maintain it will take more than one or two more choices than farmers (or ranchers) have now when it comes to buying inputs or selling production. i really don't know the solution but if you look at the history of farming it is not going at all well (on an industry basis) and shows no sign of changing. the reason there is not more choice is that concentration of ownership gathers its own momentum and once there are few enough choices the farmer finances all the takeovers that have occurred in the recent past. the competition that takes place is not on the basis of price but rather who can get interim financing to eliminate the competition; then the farmer is forced to finance it. the real pity in all this is that when there is no competition there is less incentive for innovation and market development. we see this in the cattle industry now don't we? why not bse test to open markets - because the people who control the market now don't want it.

[wmoebis]

Just for interest!
If we could split end value of commodities fairly and equitably split from producer to end consumer what would those %ages look like?

Barley to Beer
Producer gets% grain buyer/handler% transportation% maltster% brewer% retailer% and everyone else involved.

What is it now? Has anyone ever come up with such figues?

[TOM4CWB]

wmoebis,

I believe the Sk. Pulse Board has done some work and comparisons in the last few years on this subject. Gate to Plate 1, I believe had some of these comparisons, I don't see it on the SASK Pulse site any more. Gate to Plate II has some very good info @ http://www.saskpulse.com/news/latest_pulse_news.php?detail=63
http://www.saskpulse.com/media/pdfs/Final_Report__Posted_to_web_etc._.pdf