CWB star on Larry Weber Show

[charliep]

Never got a response from hoppsing about the source of the malt barley data but will note from the USDA source that average US malt barley price was about US $2.80/bu (using the June 2005 to May 2006 as a proxy). The loonie conversion during the 2005/06 pooling period is like about 1.15 or an average Cdn $3.25/bu ($150/tonne). The average return during 2005/06 crop (page 64 of the annual report was $162.82/tonne port or after deductions to prairies some in the $110 to $115/tonne area ($2.50/bu). My math is bad but it seems as there is a 75 cent/bu difference.

[parsley]

I heard John DePape is away.

[BennyHin]

Great response Bob.
Good points especially about asking Parsley for facts at her ("his") presentation. Funny, how she ("he")is so smart on this site when unchallenged.

Have you noticed she ("he") never discusses other marketing issues other than her ("his") twisted take on CWB issues? Where is her ("his") input on hedging strategies, options, crop insurance, etc. Parsley: Can you please tell us how to market next year's crop so we can get it in writing? Please explain to me the CWB buy back costs, when should i lock them in, how do they differ if you are selling US versus UK?
What is your experience with the cwbs marketing options?


Please explain your past experiences with marketing your organic grains. Are you always out money on the cwb buyback, or does the final pooled cwb payment eventually return all your buyback costs?

you are such an expert on organic marketing, you can be a real benefit to us on this site, if you were to share this information with us.

If you dont want to provide any actual marketing information, well then, kindly please leave this site, perhaps stick with your neo-small dead animals blog site.


Adamsmith, Johnkeneth, winwin, snappy, chaff, saskfarmer3, lake, charlieP, jag, craig, northfarmer, Ron, les, and the others that have a different opinion than me most of the time: I enjoy reading your posts, I always learn something your posts, the debate between is beneficial.

But when I read one of parsleys previous posts that rail freight and performance had no impact of her ("his")farm , that they sell every thing FOB farm, that just proved how little they know about commodity marketing.

[parsley]

Glad to be back from the city.

First of all, BennyHinn, it wasn't me that made the presentation, (I wish it was), so I regret to tell you that you'll have to re-read the posts again to get the flow of the conversation and try to follow what is going on.

Secondly, I have contributed on these threads for a long time, and I have written in lengthy detail about buybacks, both the losses and the ridiculousness of them, and about organic marketing in detail,(charliep slept through one winter of it ).

I don't think anyone other than you is particularly interested in re-visiting either procedure or experiences, unless of course, it's cropduster, who I can be assured, would enjoy learning to fly organics by the seat of his pants! Oh and winwin would probably take the profits from organics and distribute gifts and wedino might be interested in going to court with me if need be.

(Each of these contributors will probably understand these references better than you will.)

As for container shipping, FOB farm, open the phonebook >railways to give you quotes and assist you. They reply immediately, and courteously, which you may have to learn to adjust to, but here again, the railroads are not the problem in commodity shipping for organics.

Why, the BennyHinn's of the world ask, would any farmer ever want to entertain that FOB kind of transportation idea where the BUYER owns any shipping problem?

You will think it is nonsense.

FOB is almost as ridiculous as an audit trail in organics...field to plate...IP.....hmmmm....do I see some similarity .....nah........

The Canadian Wheat Board is the one big problem that Western Canada has, and even if you do not recognize it yet, you eventually will, BennyHinn, so until then, I suggest you just don't read my ultra-neo-neo-posts.

Parsley

I agree with you that smalldeadanimals.com is only one neo. Not enough for me.

[Fransisco]

<blockquote>BobCuthbert-"Anyway, I want to be clear on something. Are you asking me to post the significant errors in the paper? There are a quite a number. I doubt that you want to go there." </blockquote>

Bob I think we would all like to see that. With all do respect put up or shut up. My guess is that you've got squat otherwise we would have seen it long before now.

We want proof that you are putting more money in farmers pockets. Like Parsley says, farm-gate returns. Not theoretical studies and mathematical models, real world proof. The evidence runs contrary to this, DePape and others have pointed this out in spades numerous times.

<blockquote>BobCuthbert-"We can agree to disagree with courtesy and professionalism."<blockquote>

That is a two way street Bob as long as the board is holding farmers grain hostage we can not agree to disagree and go our separate ways. That is the whole point here.

And by the way deciding to attack Johns credentials instead of his evidence is an 'ad hominem' argument dress it up any way you like but there is nothing courteous, respectful or professional about it.

It is classic wheat board arrogant elitism. And then to turn around and have the gall to say Parsley doesn't deserve an answer because she is not respectful enough. Give me a break. It's always do as I say not as I do with you guys.

[charliep]

Just curious as to why this discussion is relevant now given the barley plebiscite has occurred and the count of ballets likely done. The question is what is the result, what will the federal government do and how will the CWB/other groups react.

I will also note the study does not belong to John DePape or Informa Economics (forms Sparks) but rather the Alberta government. After 3 years, there has never been a formal response (at least to my knowledge).

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

Reminds me of the Winnipeg Free Press article after Cheif Commissioner Hein stabbed Ken Bezwick in the back...

Denile isn't just a river in Africa... it is alive and well at the CWB.

Bob,

Just what had Ken negotiated... and why was it scrapped?

Would Ken's Ideas work today?

Do you know what Ken had planned to do with barley... Charlie, Bob, or John D.?

[craig]

It has become obvious contrary to statements made by Mr. Ritter and Mr Measner that the CWB has never had a contingency plan in place if in fact control of barley was removed from the board. Now they are scrambling to respond to the plebiscite results. There has never been any compromise offered or even considered. Is it surprising that so many producers want out. The CWB dealings with the Conservative government are no different than how producers who do not share the same views or philosphy as the Board are treated. It is my way or no way.

[JohnDePape]

No doubt this will get very little interest now that the barley plebiscite results have been announced, but still I feel compelled to comment.

To Bob Cuthbert:

I’m really not concerned about why you interrupted me or not, nor that you think I glossed over the Sparks barley study at the Frontier Center breakfast (perhaps you missed the point of the presentation), nor that you were disappointed that you didn’t get a copy of the study ahead of time in Calgary (BTW - no one did), but please allow me to address one of your comments.

You say the errors in the Sparks barley study were “astounding”. Perhaps you are not aware that our main source of data and information for the study was the CWB itself – Annual Reports, “Grain Trade Forecast to 2011-12” and Grain World presentations. Some information was confirmed and expanded on through discussions with CWB staff. (As you know, we asked to discuss this project with senior CWB staff but the requests were ignored). Other referenced sources were:

- Statistics Canada
- Agriculture Canada
- Canadian Grain Commission
- Economic Research Service, USDA
- Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA (GAIN Reports)
- US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau
- Alberta Grain Commission
- Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food
- Livestock Feed Bureau
- US Embassy in Tokyo
- Sparks Companies (internal balance tables)

In addition, I received information, data, analysis as well as direct verbal support, confirmation and guidance from a number of highly-respected people in the barley sector. If I have facts wrong, I’m sure you don’t mean facts that originated from any of these sources.

If there are factual mistakes that you saw but no one else caught, I think it’s your duty to the industry to set the record straight – as you see it. However, the fact that the CWB (via Adrian Measner) indicated it would publicly refute the study – but didn’t – says volumes. (Remember, the CWB released a sizable document (26 pages, I believe) refuting the George Morris Centre’s analysis of the Western Canadian cereal grain sector. If the CWB did this with the GMC study, why not the Sparks study?)

So, do I want you to, as you put it, “post the significant errors in the paper”? Do what you think you need to do Bob. Better yet, do what you think will benefit the industry. But if you do, please also comment on:
- The glaring errors in the recent UofS study. (Too many to list here.)
- The high cost of the CWB system (supported by the Federal Grain Monitor data).
- Your comment to me in Calgary: “We do struggle with barley”.

Rather than simply discuss how you feel that you and the CWB have been mis-treated I suggest keeping to substantive arguments.

Please call me if you want to discuss this more.

Respectfully,
John De Pape

[JohnDePape]

No doubt this will get very little interest now that the barley plebiscite results have been announced, but still I feel compelled to comment.

To Bob Cuthbert:

I’m really not concerned about why you interrupted me or not, nor that you think I glossed over the Sparks barley study at the Frontier Center breakfast (perhaps you missed the point of the presentation), nor that you were disappointed that you didn’t get a copy of the study ahead of time in Calgary (BTW - no one did), but please allow me to address one of your comments.

You say the errors in the Sparks barley study were “astounding”. Perhaps you are not aware that our main source of data and information for the study was the CWB itself – Annual Reports, “Grain Trade Forecast to 2011-12” and Grain World presentations. Some information was confirmed and expanded on through discussions with CWB staff. (As you know, we asked to discuss this project with senior CWB staff but the requests were ignored). Other referenced sources were:

- Statistics Canada
- Agriculture Canada
- Canadian Grain Commission
- Economic Research Service, USDA
- Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA (GAIN Reports)
- US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau
- Alberta Grain Commission
- Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food
- Livestock Feed Bureau
- US Embassy in Tokyo
- Sparks Companies (internal balance tables)

In addition, I received information, data, analysis as well as direct verbal support, confirmation and guidance from a number of highly-respected people in the barley sector. If I have facts wrong, I’m sure you don’t mean facts that originated from any of these sources.

If there are factual mistakes that you saw but no one else caught, I think it’s your duty to the industry to set the record straight – as you see it. However, the fact that the CWB (via Adrian Measner) indicated it would publicly refute the study – but didn’t – says volumes. (Remember, the CWB released a sizable document (26 pages, I believe) refuting the George Morris Centre’s analysis of the Western Canadian cereal grain sector. If the CWB did this with the GMC study, why not the Sparks study?)

So, do I want you to, as you put it, “post the significant errors in the paper”? Do what you think you need to do Bob. Better yet, do what you think will benefit the industry. But if you do, please also comment on:
- The glaring errors in the recent UofS study. (Too many to list here.)
- The high cost of the CWB system (supported by the Federal Grain Monitor data).
- Your comment to me in Calgary: “We do struggle with barley”.

Rather than simply discuss how you feel that you and the CWB have been mis-treated I suggest keeping to substantive arguments.

Please call me if you want to discuss this more.

Respectfully,
John De Pape

[TOM4CWB]

Dear John,

I believe it is important for us to remember that it is Alberta Agricultre who Commissioned the Sparks study, vetted it, and also stand by it.

I realize in CWB circles this may not add to its credibility... however in many spheres of influence and in the business community especially in Alberta it was very important.

It was a common sense study & approach to a long standing distortion to the Alberta economy.

Much thanks and appreciation to Alberta Agriculture and all those who worked in and with our government.. to resolve the barley issue!

Job well done... !

[chaffmeister]

I agree Tom. It's hard to imagine where this issue would be without the support and dedication of the folks at Alberta Ag. But also, many individual farmers need to be acknowledged and encouraged, for spending many long days and nights working toward a better marketplace for the benefit of all (including those that oppose it).

Good on ya all.

[charliep]

Would agree with you both on the issue of farmer support in Alberta. The fact that the Alberta results held constant between the CWB survey and the plebiscite says something - both are firm indications of farmer opinion. Alberta farmers don't need more information - they have indicated their choice and are looking forward to action.

I note page 25 of the CWB survey. When asked, 56 % of Alberta farmers said they would prefer an open market over CWB single desk selling when asked the either or question.

[BobCuthbert]

Hello Everyone!

Just back from overseas. As you might expect, I have a lot to do. I may try to get to some of your questions, etc. However, I did find out one thing in the past couple of weeks. When this blog was set up, the respondents were as many as 14,000. Now, there are less than 100 hard cores. So I'm not really sure of the benefit of continuing to respond. Maybe it is time to move on. Good luck to all and God bless!

Bob Cuthbert

[gregpet]

So Mr. Cuthbert, now you choose to sidestep the issue and deflect all the questions since the volume on this blog has decreased. This would not by any chance be a typical CWB tactic, if it gets tougher get out!!! Kinda like the CWB's assertion on a voluntary barley market, it might require some work and thought. Monopoly good, competition bad.