CWB and CGC Grain Grading at Port....Gossip?

[parsley]

thalpenny, many of us are very familiar with the "false stories that get embedded in human consciousness". We 've been told for years that the CWB had a mandate to get the best prices for farmers. Not true. We've been told for years that the CWB had a mandate to work in the interests of farmers. Not true. CWB said they couldn't issue export licenses without a change in legislation. Not true. Ideas that were imbedded in our consciousness, just like you say. Since the CWb is purported to have authored the letter (I've never seen it), it certainly should be received with skepticism. Good point Thalpenny. Thanks for the tip.

Parsley

[AdamSmith]

thalpenney, I made a judgement call here. Weighing the possible ramifications to our system and farmers bottom line vs the need for farmers to know what is going on within the system.

As a farmer, which is more important to me, having knowledge of something and keeping it quiet because it could cause harm in the short term or bringing the problem to light so that action can be taken so that this type of problem won't reoccur in the future?

I chose the latter based on the fact that if damage has been done and dollars have been lost, it has allready happened. Keeping quiet won't undo what has already been done.

It is true I do not have all the facts but to suggest this is merely misinformation when I have a letter that would suggest otherwise is quite absurd. Only a really bad poker player would try to bluff after the cards have been shown.

I guess what irks me here is that HY644 the fusarium resistant CPS wheat was regected because of KVD and within a few weeks of that decision I find out that this system is proving to have it's failings and the regulators who impose this system (KVD)on the farmers of WCanada are, behind closed doors, questioning it's current value. While the message for public consumption remains something quite different.

I hope things have been straightened out or will be very soon, but instead of trying to sweep this under the rug maybe farmers should be made aware of it and see if they think changes are warrented.

AdamSmith

[ianben]

Hi All
I am amazed you don't do falling number test, we call it Hagberg, on each load delivered to elevator. That is the way it is done here, below 250 is rejected and is feed, no argument, no premium,
Merchants sometimes try to blend, but it is risky as you sometimes end up with more feed.
The bakers say they can tell when it has been blended so you do damage your reputation.
Our millers like to use one variety for each batch of flour to give consistant
results and falling numbers are definitely important to them.
So looks to me like the CWB is not helping you in this area either.

Regards Ian

[ianben]

Just a thought
I presume you guys know what affects falling numbers?
Do you ignore this traite as you are not individually tested for it?
If this is true perhaps it could be an advantage. Some years if the weather is against us ALL our wheat will fail the falling number test. Last year was such a year.

Regards Ian

[bbrindle]

I sent an email to the CGC earlier today to see if they wanted to join this and respond. They asked me to post the following:

The CWB has not had any customer rejection of sales or shipments of No. 2
CWRS or any other wheat grades due to concerns over falling number results. The CWB is currently working with the CGC and other members in the grain handling system to ensure that our customers are satisfied with the falling numbers of the wheat they're purchasing from the CWB.

[charliep]

Just a note to highlight we are talking about an industry problem and not just a CWB one. The issue starts right at the farm level with varietal selection to fit markets the first (keeping in mind mother nature) right through to providing the customer the product they are paying for. It is an issue that in some sense involves all elements of the industry from farm managers to CGC to elevators to terminals - anyone who handles/blends/grades wheat.

My experience suggests that there is a pretty reasonable correlation between our current grading standards and the quality characturistics our customers want/are paying for. Do we want to include other quality characturistics in our grading standards? Are there things we are doing right? How would we change the system if it needs improvement? In the US, they pay premiums for wheat quality characturistics. Do they segregate wheat with certain quality or do they blend to achieve an end quality result? Who accepts the risk/profit from blending? Should falling number be a grade determining factor as Ianben indicates is the case in the UK? Could we achieve premium for falling number as a grade specification/requirement or would this simply be another reason for customers to discount some wheat?

[AdamSmith]

It amazes me how the CGC and the CWB react when anything that might suggest they're not the dictionary's example of perfection comes out in public!

Judging by bbrindles note the CGC is quite POed that this information has come to light. As farmers were supposed to be dumb hayseeds who have no business inquiring about what is happening, if there are problems it's none of our concern, they'll look after it and just send us (farmers) the bill.

Just shut up, grow grain, and pay up when others screw up.

The CGC says no sales have been lost, that may very well be so but that doesn't mean other grain had to brought in to meet those sales commitments and that the grain in question is not still sitting at the west coast with no buyer for it. Or that the grain in question was just deep discounted in order to move it out.

If my liability ended when I delivered the grain to the elevator this wouldn't even be an issue. But that's not what happens I'm expected to cover this screw-up no mater whose fault it was.

Justice Estey said let those who screw-up pay the price not the farmer. But that won't happen will it. The needs of the regulators supercede the needs of the farmers.

I can already see the web starting to be spun.

AdamSmith

[AdamSmith]

I knew when I posted the last message that it would be fodder for some negative comments. However, I posted it because all of this discussion was based on the declaration of a rumour.

And it is posted by anonymous people, who obviously have a decided bias against the CWB. One who evidently works closely with grain companies (is that a bias?) And who attempt at every turn to discredit the organization that has an impeccable reputation with international customers on behalf of western Cdn farmers. Am I sounding defensive? - I hope so.

To Ianben, the visual grading system works as a cost effective indicator of grain quality. Percentage of Hard Vitreous Kernel (HVK) and degree of kernel soundness are reliable indicators of alpha amylase enzyme activity (sprouting). Rather than have to test the well over 1 million truckloads that enter the elevator system each year, the testing can be done at terminal position, before assembling the product for the customer, in a much more efficient way, and obviously lower cost. This is enabled by a strict varietal registration system, so wheat that has the same kernel shape and color has defined milling characteristics.

Canada has a world leading reputation for providing consistency, uniformity and reliabiilty of meeting specs. This doesn't sound like a system that has performed poorly.

Hoever, I agree that our wheat quality system in Canada will have to change and evolve. Again, I direct people to look at the discussion paper on this topic on the www.cwb.ca/publications... entitled Western Canada's wehat qualty control system.

Also Charlie is right - this is an industry issue, not one to be directed solely at the CWB.

Tom

[TOM4CWB]

To Charlie, TOM and the CGC and CWB.

I find it amazing that grain producers are not considered part of the industry!

We as grain producers are hiring you, the trade, the grain co's, government extention people, CGC and CWB to be our partners and do a specific job for us, the Western Canadian grain producers.

No One Has More To Loose Than Grain Producers!

And we wonder why Canada is known as a inconsistant unreliable shipper of wheat and barley by the world's grain consumers and buyers?

Please stop treating me like I am a mushroom!

I am concerned about the consumers of my grain products, even if you don't think I should be!

I like to think we might learn by our mistakes, instead of hiding our heads in the sand and then getting our collective farmer buts kicked by everyone else!

Have I over reacted?

[AdamSmith]

thalpenny, I'll stop discrediting the CWB tommorow, I'll never utter another unkind word about it, just let me out.

We can part company and I'll wish you well. But if you (not you personaly but the CWB) continue to keep me confined to a system which I oppose, I'm going to continue to raise kane every chance I get. If it takes another ten years to do so, so be it.

It's your (the CWB's) call. More bitterness and accusations or a peaceful coexistance. I would much prefer the latter.

Pitty about all those dollars spent on country meetings, new benchmarking studies, glossey publications etc. All going down the crapper when this hits the fan.

AdamSmith

[Braveheart]

Adam Smith publishes a document signed by a high ranking CWB official. Thalpenny continues to refer to "rumours". This reminds me of Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sex with that woman"!

Thalpenny refers to many of the participants in this thread as being biased against the CWB. In fact, these people are biased in favor of farmers. There is a difference. These people vigorously defend the rights of farmers, rights that the Gov't of Canada suspended in 1943.

The CWB calls itself a marketer. If it really believed that, the CWB wouldn't have balked when farmers said they should be paid for the protein in their wheat. They (CWB) wouldn't have resisted years of lobbying to pay farmers in increments on protein. If it was a marketer of farmers' wheat, the CWB wouldn't continue to shun paying farmers on a sliding scale for the dry matter in grain. And if it were truly a marketer, the CWB wouldn't continue to support KVD (to maintain the flagship CWRS).

The support of KVD as the mainstay of Canada's quality assurance system has robbed western farmers of countless potentially promising wheat varieties that never saw registration. It is not a good measure of the actual milling and baking quality of wheat. In fact, thalpenny, visual degree of kernal soundness is no indicator of the presence of alpha amylase enzyme.

What can be done to improve Canada's quality assurance system? I believe KVD should be replaced with affadavits in some classes, ie AC Navigator, AC Vista, HY644, etc. CWRS could be quality assured with simple declarations, followed by falling number and protein testing. In an open market system, enterprising entrepreneurs might have had those declarations document field and pesticide history which could have added some value to a commodity in a food safety conscious world.

Canada is the only country I know of that uses KVD as a quality assurance system. Yet, we lose market share every year. We use KVD to maintain the CWRS class. Yet, Alberta farmers find CPS varieties have the potential to return a better contribution to margin. Manitoba farmers are finding high yields from winter wheat, and have trouble registering new varieties because of KVD requirements.

The mess in Vancouver is a result of hanging on to the sinking KVD ship. It could cause lost opportunities to sell wheat and lost canola sales. Seeing as the wheat board is at helm of the ship, it should go down with it.

Braveheart

[parsley]

This is what the CWB's VP Transportation and Country Operations CWB. Ward Weisensel supposedly states in a letter,

" ... The net effect of this blending is that the FN levels of No.2/3CWRS unloading at port are not meeting the quality expectations of customers. "

Everyone on Agri-ville will hope the CWB's Vice President of Transportation and Operations is not referring to rumors.


This is what the CWB's thalpenny says on Agri-ville,

"Falling number tests are conducted at port, and if there are problems, obviously they are rectified before the CGC provides a certificate final on any vessel."

You're right, Tom. The customer is always looked after ...and very well. The buyer gets a good product. That's Good. The CGC inspection service that the FARMER is footing the for, is so that ultimately, we have satisfied buyers.


So the bottom line is, grain is taken to port that doesn't meet specs...the buyer doesn't want it....so everything is juggled around, and other grain is brought in....with the right specs......unloading costs....or storage costs....or recleaning costs....or re-inspection costs.....so the buyer is satisfied . The ship is loaded and the buyer is happy.

But the farmer pays for that re-loading, that re-cleaning, that re-hauling and that re-grading and that re-testing. Is all this extra expense for farmers justified?

Parsley