Wanted: More Cheap Barley

[parsley]

Remember in '02-'03?? The CWB imported malting barley from Denmark!

Canadian farmers couldn't sell their barley unless they sold it for firesale prices to the CWB. And when they sold it for feed, the WB gives top dollar to Denmark farmers.

At least August 1, we'll be able to shop elsewhere for a better price.

In the meantime Burbert, call all your single desk friends and tell them to deliver that malt barley NOW! They are the guys that KNOW they'll still get Board dollars.

Do them a favor.

Parsley

[icelander]

I can't understand how the cwb and malters are afraid of farmers not delivering barley to them. If the prices are still so low that they can't get barley then the so called experts at the cwb should be fired.I signed a guaranteed mininum price contract and am wondering what is going to happen to it?

[chaffmeister]

Parsley - at the very least, get your facts right. The CWB had NOTHING to do with the imports from Denmark. The maltsters did it on their own. Kinda answers your question about how the maltsters would react if the crop was entirely frozen.

[just_wondering]

What is malt barley worth on the world market?
What is that price backed off to Saskatoon, Calgary, Winnipeg, My farm?

how much can I expect for my malt in Sept07 through to july08
What kind of prices are required to keep farmers and maltster's happy

I would sign a multi year contract for $4.25 FOB and still make a reasonable profit but I would need good delivery dates and attainable specs maybe thats too cheap/expensive but I would take that for the first while.
Lets just get it started.

[parsley]

It's the oddest mistake, interchanging the CWB with the CWB's partner, the maltsters. It must have been a Boardian slip.

Sorry for making the er, error.....but it brought to light a few questions.

I have to go through this one step at a time, chaff, and thanks for making sure we all get it right. I know you will.

I am going to presume that the maltsters had contracted in 02-03 the same as they did in 07-07.

So the MALTSTERS imported Danish barley in 02-03, because the Canadian farmers didn't deliver but the maltsters lobby to keep the monopoly in Ottawa in 07 because Canadian farmers didn't deliver.

We'd all agree that the CWB set the prices so low, that the farmers wouldn't deliver, right?

So, what kind of loss were the maltsters asking the Federal Government to pay out to them in 02-03? I can't seem to recall.

Did the maltsters sue a swack of farmers they had contracted with? I can't seem to recall. icelander is asking about his contract in this thread.

Did the CWB make any kind of payout to the lobbysters/Maltsters because some contracts were unfulfilled?

Is the fact that the maltsters are asking for cash from anyone with a chequebook, before there are even any losses VERIFIED, even a sound legal business practice? (I'm not referring to political oppotunism here)

The bottom line is this...the CWB and the maltsters want cheap like borscht barley from farmers, like they have always been handed, and it's time these rotten little brats moved out of home and support themselves.

Parsley

[Jay-mo]

How much more obvious can it get that the CWB monopoly has been ripping off farmers when their biggest customers start raising a big stink about having to pay what its actually worth.
The way it looks to me is that the CWB has been in the back pocket of the maltsters supplying them with cheap barley.
Heres a question, correct me if i'm wrong. I have been told that one bushel of malt barley will make over 300 bottles of beer. If the price of malt goes from $3/bushel to $4, $5, even $6/bushel how much does that really affect the cost of producing beer?

[jrkfarms]

It is true that one bushel of malt barley will make 333 bottles of beer. We know that breweries are more concerned about the price of aluminum for there beer cans than the price of malt barley. Hows that for value added.

[wd9]

Parsley, F flat traditionally is rarely used anymore, it actually is an E, but technically an F is an E sharp, and an E is an F flat, although if an opera were to be written, it probably would be in E flat, aka D sharp.

I see the CWB supporters seem to not be able to explain the value to me as a farmer thing. They must be seeding, ya that's it.

[parsley]

Glad you noticed, (but then you don't miss much) and me a piano plunker and all. Must have er, slipped up again.

I'll try harder by trying not to insult sheep.

A "reliable source" told me the break-even point for maltsters is $90/tonne. Does that sound reasonable to you, chaff?

Parsley

[chaffmeister]

Parsley, I gotta be honest. Your postings on this topic have gotten too shrill and sophomoric with too much innuendo for my taste. Your singular focus on vilifying the maltsters without any semblance of reason, evidence, analysis or logic, has impaired this discussion. And, unfortunately, you are perpetuating a basic misunderstanding of how this industry works while creating new ones. Under these conditions, there’s nothing here that holds my interest.

When you have facts to draw from and are willing to listen to reason, let me know. Otherwise, knock yourself out.

[kamichel]

I know that law changes policy changes have positive as well as negative effects on industries. What I cannot figure out is how the malt industry is negatively affected by an open market. I thought the Maltsters always wanted to deal more direct with producers. The CWB's claim to fame is that they get better prices for producers. On the flip side maltsters would pay more, so why then would malsters think that they will be harmed by an open market? In fact an open market would have supplied the malt that was imported from Europe in 02 03, likely for a lower cost to the maltsters. And I will say it again, I do not believe that there is much if any unsecured grain, I believe the malsters contracts have all the commitments from the farmers.
At the moment in my area we have new crop min. price contracts anywhere from 3.6 to 4 dollars per bushel which are both good historical prices. If feed barley hits 4 dollars like it has maybe once in 10 years then the farmers that contracted should still deliver.

[parsley]

I recall the unfortunate thing about tough questions is that Vader almost always disappeared.

kamichel, perhaps your statement, "I believe the malsters contracts have all the commitments from the farmers", holds similarity to something I was told....that Cargill was covered on all contracted the week of April 23.

I want to ask some really kindergarten questions, next:

If they have contracts, what makes them think farmers will not deliver?

If delivery occurs, where is the loss?

What are the calcuable numbers of the loss or is it just termed "a wad of cash"?

So what were they doing lobbying to extend the CWB monopoly?

I tried to tone these questions down, so I hope they are not so shrill. I am trying to be more er, sensitive.

Parsley