Wanted: More Cheap Barley

[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

[Burbert]

If I was a cowguy, I would be rubbing my hands with glee, finally the export malt market for barley has been destroyed, more for me and bessy. Wow, you ain't seen nothing yet, all this cheap feed suddenly available! Confusion at home, confusion abroad, can't wait. I drove a hard bargain last year, cause of all the grass this year it will be even tougher. Way to go Alberta Barley Comm, you guys really know what is good for us and are earning every single levy dollar that you take. Agriculture and marketers are stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid....the FORKERS have prevailed, glory be, now all the race horses can be happy, no wonder the guy needs security even on civvy street.

[parsley]

Gee Burbert, there is a huge demand for malt barley thorughout the world, it's just that the CWB won't give farmers the export license so we can get the malting barley out of the country.

Make sure you get your CWB friends to sell to the CWB right now, for how much a tonne? They will hardly want to receive the open market price come August 1, 2007.

Parsley

[chaffmeister]

Kamichel:
Responses to your comments – one by one.

<i>I know that law changes policy changes have positive as well as negative effects on industries.</i>
Just like the Crow. And the Feds made reparations to both farmers and processors.

<i>What I cannot figure out is how the malt industry is negatively affected by an open market.</i>
They’re not. This is a positive change. Just ask them. The negative impact comes from the open contracts with the CWB in the transition (as a result of the policy change) and the lack of honour at the CWB.

<i>I thought the Maltsters always wanted to deal more direct with producers.</i>
They do.

<i>The CWB's claim to fame is that they get better prices for producers.</i>
Evidence is to the contrary.

<i>On the flip side maltsters would pay more, so why then would malsters think that they will be harmed by an open market?</i>
They don’t.

<i>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.</i>
If we had an open market in 02-03, the maltsters would have been bidding increasingly better prices throughout the year. They wouldn’t have needed to import.

<i>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.</i>
I don’t have that information. Would be good for this discussion to have it.

[AdamSmith]

"Oh What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

This quote just came to mind when I read the following from Flaten,

Gord Flaten, the wheat board's vice-president of marketing, said this might solve the problem from the malting industry's perspective. But if his organization bore the brunt of these liabilities, it would incur "huge financial losses," which it cannot afford and which would come directly out of farmers' pockets. (The wheat board deducts its costs from payments to Prairie farmers for the grain it sells on their behalf.)

"I think it's important to point out that the wheat board doesn't have a bunch of money to cover losses like this," Flaten said. "The only money we have is money that is owing to farmers (from the sale of their grain)."


Doesn't this just sum up the value of the cwb to farmers? They spin and they spin and they spin but at the end of the day the only real deal they can offer farmers is either A) take a loss or B) take a loss.

That's the real choice the CWB offers farmers.

Does Flaten Line offer a profitable deal to farmers? Nope, because there is none to be offerer by the cwb the only thing they can offer is deception and disapointment.

As far as the malsters are concerned, I realy don't have much sympathy for them.

Considering both parties knew the odds were very high that the marketing regulations concerning barley would change come Aug.1 The Malsters should have practiced a little caution before building a years business plan around a deal with the cwb which they had to have known was almost impossible for the cwb to fulfill considering the negotiated price.

I equate it to whinning because the Rolex you just bought from the trunk of some guys car doesn't work and it really isn't a Rolex.

In my opinion the malsters should just suck it up and move on with life an learn a lesson from this, that dealing with shaddy and dishonest characters never pays.

As far as the CWB goes, well there really is no hope for them. They are what they are and they will never change.

[AdamSmith]

What's the difference between the two following negotiations in buying barley?

Scenerio #1

CWB salesman: Hello, Mr. Malster, this is the cwb calling, I'm sure you have noticed the appreciation in the price of barley lately but we would like to reasure you that we will still be able to supply you with all the barley you will need for the 2007/08 season at 2005 prices.

Malster: Ooh goody, I'll take 2 million tonnes.

CWB salesman: Excellent!

Scenerio #2

Some Guy on the Street: Hey! Buddy! Want to buy some barley? Cheap!

Malster: Ooh goody, I'll take 2 million tonnes.

Some Guy on the Street: Excellent!

[parsley]

TENDERS: FARM GRAIN TRUCK BEFORE AUGUSI 1, 2007

Specifications:

One large tarped green farm grain truck, with a pressure-sprayed clean box, in the Ottawa region, with interprovincial license plates, for delivering large amounts of Government payouts, approximately $2B, as compensation for an anticpated loss, to grain companies across Canada.

Load will not exceed 2 billion one dollar bills.
Guarantee:
The compensation to grain companies will be forthcoming even if a loss should not be incurred, in order to prevent any disintegration of the well-established symbiotic relationships within the the grain trade

Considerations:
1. This tender is designed to meet the needs of the Environmental community by requesting a GREEN truck.
2. This tender is designed to meet the needs of the farm community by specifying a farm truck. Gas expenses and $7.00 per hour will be paid to the farmer winning this lucrative contract, and earnings will be pooled in the 07-08 malt barley pools.

This tender is subject to passing an RCMP criminal check.

Apply in writing to:
graintraitors@theboard.wnp

Parsley