CWB star on Larry Weber Show

[Incognito]

Thats it. I'm buying insurance for my keyboards - they just cant seem to take coffee expelled from my nose.

LOL

[BobCuthbert]

Hello John,

Always with respect, John. We have known each other for some thime and I am sure that you and I can keep this on the high road. We can agree to disagree with courtesy and professionalism. I was not suggesting that I should have had the right to interupt you repeatedly at the Frontier Centre breakfast. And it simply was not worth it to launch into a major debate in front of that small audience of commited anti-CWB lobbyists.
You basically glossed over your paper and did not really present much for facts and data. In March 2004, when you presented the paper in full in Calgary, we asked for a copy before the meeting and were refused. At the break during your presentation, I asked the moderator if I could have some time at the end to respond. This was refused. Then in the second half of your presentation, I did comment on every second or third slide
because frankly, the errors were astounding! I did not enjoy doing that but I had no choice. And I certainly did not agree with your "evidence". John, you've said yourself that you are not an economist. 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.

Respectfully,
Bob Cuthbert

P.S. old "Farmgate" Parsley's comments do not deserve a reply as they are sans respect,professionalism and in many cases, common sense. But winwin does have a sense of humour! I like that!

[charliep]

Bob

Just curious as to why the CWB never responded formally to the study. You have responded formally to other studies including the George Morris Center one.

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/hot/studies/pdf/morriscentre.pdf

What is important now is the results of the barley plebiscite and the the federal government's next steps.

[parsley]

No. What is important is that once again, Canadian Wheat Board employees brush off farmers.

It is much easier to claim Parsley does not deserve a reply, rather than to respond to Parsley's complaint that farmgate studies are lacking.

No wonder you don't want to reply to farmers, Cuthbert.

FARMGATE RETURNS... a nasty little phrase if you work for the CWB.

How do CWB economists respond to a valid complaint? They don't. They shoot the messenger.

Cuthbert digs up all kinds of reasons why Parsley doesn't deserve an answer, but Agri-villers will note that Parsley didn't get that answer from Cuthbert for the biggie:

"How come hotshot economists working for/at the CWB don't do studies on farmgate returns?"

Cuthbert will acutely remember when Ken Ritter rittered on every radio station he could squeeze, claiming that it was good business to take money out of the pooling accounts to pay for Government appointed Directors plus CWB staff to go to Liberal fundraisers. It was, a public relations fiasco, indeed. And the CWB rescinded their policy after farmers took a round out of them.

It's bloody farmer money.

CWB employees need to EARN respect from farmers,Cuthbert,you've got it backwards, and judging by the lashing the CWB often gets from every direction...MP's Ministers, farm organizations, trade organizations, farmers, business organizations...and on and on, and the fact that the staff needed stress bonuses,.... screams a lack of respect for the CWB et al.

I've observed that the CWB staff have a real problem....because a good number of the people they are supposed to work for don't respect them and don't want the CWB as a business partner.

Parsley

[charliep]

Bob

Just curious how much 2007/08 crop has been forward sold to the domestic maltsters? Always curious about the difference in philosophy on risk management between producer contracts ($21.80/tonne discount for malt barley fixed price contracts with logic hard if not impossible to manage price risk relative to the pooling system) and signing forward contracts with maltsters (can forward price to domestic maltsters with the knowledge that farmers grow 6 to 7 MMT of malt barley varieties out of which the CWB only needs 2 MMT so who cares if the you short the market without having the supplies to back up the contracts - farmers are going to deliver to the CWB/malsters regardless of price). Perhaps a change that has to occur is the CWB should not be allowed to forward contract without having farmer physiscal delivery contracts in place.

Irrelevant to the thread and don't expect an answer but a question that remains on my mind.

[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.