U.S. Wheat Associates

[sawfly]

we seldom grow durham, and im sure i will be corrected for any errors .

but for many years durham had a dollar preium to spring wht. and in this time the stocks to use ratio was always worse for durham than spring .

in an open market , the ratio should have driven the price as low as feed barley.
every year the board said dont grow so much durham, farmers didnt listen,

because the board kept delivering price wise, the farmers kept growing it. until carryover grew to( what 70%)

correct me here , but did not pumping product thru places like algeria. while maintaining price disipline in N.A. and other markets net the cdn farmer more money, than open market ever would have.

now admittedly price signals ,were opposite supply signals. but if open market price signals were in place those , acres would have been planted to something else, depresssing other prices.

explain to me how over the last 10 years how the open market would have netted more in farmers pockets than what happened.

[agstar77]

Parsley . That is just the problem the Minister refuses to meet with the B.O.D. or even have an arbitraitor settle disputes, but instead passes orders in council and gives directives from his throne. This should be a consultative process and if the minister can prove his point so be it. It's incredible that the so called Minister responsible for the CWB has not met with the B.O.D. Is he scared of them? Does he not have a good case for what he is doing? Is he scared of the politcal fallout of such a meeting? He has his spies on the B.O,D. that can inform him if he is getting all the sales data. He has his own pick for a CEO. How could he claim he is not getting all the information? Or is he just choosing to ignore it to serve his purpose in the Vote? All the while he is claiming he wants a strong effective CWB , what a load of bull!

[Fransisco]

Wow sawfly, you must be a product of our wonderful publicly funded Canadian School system. Thanks for lowering the bar.

First off, sentences start with capital letters like 'W' not 'w'.

It's spelt 'durum' not 'durham'.

Next its spelt 'I'm' not 'im', capital I apostrophe m. 'I' when you are talking about yourself is also capitalized.

Its 'premium' not 'preium' and 'didnt' is supposed to have an apostrophe between the n and the t.

Algeria being a country gets a capital A. And 'disipline' is actually spelled 'discipline' you forgot the 'c'.

Finally 'depresssing' is spelled 'depressing' lose one of the 'S's'.

[Fransisco]

Google fight!

[URL="http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=agstar77&word2=chaffmei ster"]agstar77 vs chaffmeister [/URL]

[FarmRanger]

Lighten up Fransisco,
Unless you’re an elementary school language teacher, spelling isn’t the most important thing here.

I’d like to know how it benefits Canadian durum growers by selling our durum below market price? The open market in that particular case would have returned tens of dollars per tonne more to us, no?

[Willowcreek]

farmers_son and Haneys arguments and way of thinking play right into the Packers hands-- keep that generic beef out there so they can pipe it in from anywhere they can get their hands on it cheap...

farmers_son-- Did you notice that USDA also has a proposed rule to forget about FMD and allow imports from Argentina?

What will generic beef be worth when Cargil/Tyson/Swift/etal start piping it in from Argentina and Brazil at $20-$30cwt from their new feedlots and slaughter houses down there?... And as long as they control all the slaughter in N.A., they aren't going to voluntarily label or allow anyone else that slaughters to label- without government intervention forcing them to...

Kaiser- you need to get this farmer one of Bens books, so he can see the picture of a few years down the line when the Big 4 own ALL the cattle and beef industry.....

[Fransisco]

True enough, spelling isn't.

But clear communication is and it's pretty tough to communicate clearly with poor spelling and grammar.

Then there are the definitions. The monopolists have completely different definitions of 'premium','peer review' and 'independent' studies than the rest of the world.

I believe they intentionally keep the debate muddy so as to be able to insert whatever conclusion they want whenever they want.

If they can control the language and set the terms they can control the debate. Clarity is not their friend, but it is ours.

You asked a clear question Farmranger with
<blockquote>"I’d like to know how it benefits Canadian durum growers by selling our durum below market price?"</blockquote>

You will not get a clear answer because we no that it doesn't.

[Fransisco]

Oop's.

I meant to say we 'know' that it doesn't.

I'm picking up some bad habits here.

[parsley]

agstar77,

You seem to be describing organics' experience with the CWB, probably because you are most familiar with them.

CWB meetings' with farmers and farm groups has yielded no results, no easing, no support of Western farmers, and has only exposed the intention of the Board to maintian srict status quo.

THAT IS WHY the overall Board support is slowly losing losing, losing, agstar. One by one, farmers join the choice side. Compare your unquestioning support 10 years ago with today.

I can relate to what the CWB has done to organics. Your CWB tactics are despicable.

1. The CWB Directors completely ignored the counsel and advice given to them by 325-member organization of organic growers meeting with the CWB, insisting that the organic growers be allowed to bypass Board marketing and pooling the same as the CWB allowed the multinationals to do. (You WILL pay the price eventually).

2. The CWB set up an organic marketing department even though the organic organization stressed they did not want it

3. The CWB head of marketing publically, and I stress publically, compared organic growers to dogs. There has never been an apology.

4. Passing orders by the Directors to allow the CWB to market exclusively for a small group of organic growers, encapsulated the vision of the CWB single-desk Directors.

5. The CWB supposedly failed to find markets for their exclusive hand-picked organic farmers , but continue to operate an organic marketing marketing department that has proven itself of no value to organics itself, and has instead proven itself an outright expense to conventional growers.

6. This is how the CWB has treated organics; and indeed you will be proud, because you even have the bloody audacity to mention the words arbitraition, consultative, poltitical fallout, and spies.

Your response has once again inspired me to not be so so lax, agstar77.

Even though the CWB's singledeskers' fat cheeks are plumped full of Western grain right now, they can crawl back into their own holes and look forward to pails and pails a'coming.

Parsley

[parsley]

..........and it aint grain..........

[cottonpicken]

Frannyspellcheck you are one annoying dude.

[sawfly]

i know my spelling and typing is terrible, and there probably is a spell checker on here somewhere.

this is the internet , freedom from capitals. I know its I'm but im was 2 less key stokes , and then i have to find that little sucker (')

[Fransisco]

Hey if you guys think spelling at a grade three level makes you look smarter, knock yourself out.

[cottonpicken]

maybe its the thought that counts

[farmers_son]

Willowcreek… Exactly so, you have raised some valid concerns. Yes the packers can buy live cattle cheaper in Brazil and Argentina. I would point out to you that those same packers can buy cheaper live cattle right next door in Canada, cheaper than in the U.S.

So what do you do about it? The U.S. producer could lobby for MCOOL, more protectionism, tariffs…as you say you are looking for government intervention to protect your industry. However there is another way.

I am going to throw out a wild and crazy idea. What would happen if live cattle were the same price in Canada as in the United States? Just like that our cheaper cattle are no longer a threat to your industry. It is not in the best interest of cattle producers in one country to see cattle producers in another country not being paid fair prices for live cattle. Trade barriers, MCOOL for example, only serve to create pools of cheaper live cattle in other countries. The packers operate globally, you are thinking locally. The big picture is that it is in the best interest of American producers to see Canadian live cattle prices on par with U.S. prices. Low live cattle prices in other countries does not support higher live cattle prices in the United States and in fact only benefit the packers.

The producer in Argentina and Brazil is not going to go away. I think the real underlying problem in those countries is the packer only pays those producers pennies on the dollar for their live cattle and then exports that beef globally at world prices, keeping the difference for themselves. It is a problem for all of us when producers anywhere in the world are not being paid fairly for their live cattle.