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

[parsley]

When you make remarks like this, thalpenny,

"One who evidently works closely with grain companies"....

just keep in mind that... just maybe, not everyone who works at the CWB/CGC may want farmers to be kept in the dark.

Parsley

[bbrindle]

1. Parsley, I posted the CGC statement by copying - no retyping. So it is the CGC's statement from an email, word for word.

2. To paraphrase thalpenny's second paragraph: "... KVD ... has served farmers and their customers well and given Canada a competitive advantage in the past." "(the CWB, in cooperation with the CGC are) .. leading the charge to have the discussion on changing the wheat quality system", "... acknowledge that different farm groups and people have been talking about affidavit systems, etc. for some time."

I think it is the "in the past" "talking ... for some time" that leads farmers to question the speed of "leading the charge". The "charge" has been going on for at least six years. I just happened to be looking at the "Canada-United States Joint Commision on Grains" today. It says "Canada is examining its varietal control system to identify and implement the means to maintain the integrity of its current intrinsic quality of grain classes by KVD, using scientific testing or tracing methods in order to assure quality control from farm to end-use." That was in 1995.

[TOM4CWB]

Brenda,

This is the real problem with our over regulated system.

Decades go by, and change that would take 1 year in other industries takes 10 years.

Farmers are stuck with all the overhead, and cannot shake it off!

Innovation is seriously restrained in this environment!

Who would have thought a year ago that the CWB and Grain Companies would be fighting for a whole year about tendering!

Is this a nightmare or what?

[parsley]

A year ago today, Craig posed a very interesting question. I hope you don't mind that pasted it on this thread Craig. And straightened a bit for easier reading.


QUOTE
Topic: CWB seed Identification
Craig
posted Apr 10, 2000 20:41

I just read in this evening newspaper that the CWB is spending 1.5 million of farmers money to develop technology for identifying varieties by gene identification. As usual there is no background as to why, who made this decision, and where the money is actually coming from. If this is to address GMO's then I have a concern that we as producers are being asked to spend money on a problem we did not necessarily create. The next comment would be that if the CWB was not in place who would be footing the bill. While I am not suggesting that this money does not need to be spent, I would suggest that other parties with vested interests need to step up. One
suggestion that if you want to release GMO varietes then you need to contribute to this.

NOW, THIS DUDE AINT DULL!



THE ONLY REPLY:

IP: Logged "
bbrindle
posted Apr 10, 2000 21:33

I'm wondering if the article you refer to, is a recent press release, from the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC)? It says, 'The Government of Canada has committed up to$3.27 million to help grain producers and industry work together with researchers to develop rapid grain quality testing techniques.

The funding, announced today by the Honourable Andy Mitchell, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario) on behalf of Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Lyle Vanclief, comes from the Western Grain Transportation Adjustment Fund. ... Research funded under this program will require industry partners to match the federal funding. In recognition of the need to provide farmers options in varietal selection and to meet customers’ specific requirements, the
Canadian Wheat Board has committed $1.5 million to this initiative.' '...the money announced today will support the development of automated grain quality testing techniques to keep pace with customer demands and new developments in plant breeding technology. Funding under the new initiative will go toward projects that investigate new techniques that can be used to complement the current system.
One potential example is the use of DNA.' '... this initiative will build on that excellent system by reducing reliance on visual grading.' Everyone can read more about it in the full CGC press release at www.cgc.ca and look under 'News'. What other comments do people have on this? What 'industry partners' should be contributing? Would you like to see a system that reduces the reliance on visual grading?

IP: Logged
Reply to this Thread

Last Updated November 07, 2000
© 1997-2000 Agri-ville
GOOD FOR BRENDA FOR RAISING THESE ISSUES. THE FARM COMMUNITY SHOULD HAVE ANSWERED. THE CGC SEEMS MUTE.

THE YEARLY TESTING COST WILL BE DOWNLOADED ON THE FARM COMMUNITY AGAIN. IS THIS WHAT ALL YOU FARMERS OUT THERE WANT? TO PAY FOR LOOKING FOR EQUIPMENT, PURCHASING EQUIPMENT AND SERVICING THE STANDARDS YEARLY? wHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS A CONTAMINATED BOATLOAD OF GMO'S.... WHO PAYS?

PARSLEY

[parsley]

The CGC is busy trying to spend farmer's money, it seems. Ther e is a program they seem to be trying to flog.....an option for Special Crops Payment Protection. It looks as if they grain merchants want to carry insurance in case they go broke...and guess who they want to fund this insurance scheme? Surprise.......farmers!

Every farmner should be asking why the hell they don't fund their own insurance scheme.

Okay, so here's a scheme....why don't farmers get the CGC's Pension Fund to fund farm truck package policies? Anybody in favor?

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

The special crops bonding and licensing issue has been ongoing since 1990.

I agree that many simply want to down load it onto farmers, and take the risk out of sales transactions for the CGC.

They want to sit and watch the world go by, keep their jobs, and not be liable for anything if someone doesn't get paid.

The last scheme didn't assure anyone of anything, and cost a whale of alot of money!

I hope this time they use common sense.

1. If you have assured payment, then you will be paid, no matter what.

2. If the CGC is going to watch grain buyers, then I should be able to phone up the CGC and check if the grain buyer is current on payments, and be assured if I sell to that buyer, that I will get paid. Otherwise there is no use for the CGC to even be watching buyers!

We need some clear thinking this time, last time 3 years ago the CGC could have made it work but simply forgot logical simple business sense. Too many political games being played!

[charliep]

Just a note to highlight todays press release from cgc.

Western Standards Committee tightens tolerances for sprout-damaged kernels to protect CWRS breadmaking quality

WINNIPEG, April 19, 2001—The Western Standards Committee (WSC) has recommended measures to protect the breadmaking quality of Canadian wheat in years when sprout damage is widespread.

At its spring meeting on April 3, the committee approved a proposal to add tolerances for severe sprout damage in No. 2 and No. 3 grades of Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat and to tighten the tolerances for total sprout-damaged kernels in those grades.

"Recently, there have been sprouting problems with some No. 2 and 3 CWRS wheat delivered to seaboard terminals. Because quality is important to our customers, it is important to farmers and the grain industry," said Douglas Stow, CGC assistant chief commissioner and WSC chairperson. "I’m pleased the committee recognized the importance of addressing this issue that was brought to our attention by the Canadian Wheat Board."

Sprouting in wheat produces an enzyme, known as alpha-amylase, that breaks down starch when wheat flour is made into bread. Alpha-amylase reduces the water holding capacity of the flour, reducing the number of loaves of bread obtained from a given weight of flour. Sprout damage leads to sticky dough that causes handling problems in the bakery, and coarse, gummy bread that is difficult to slice and package. (See backgrounder for more information.)

The new tolerances will come into effect Aug. 1, 2001. The table below shows the current and proposed tolerances.

Sprout-damaged kernels (%)

Grade name Severe Total Current Proposed Current Proposed

No. 1 CWRS 0.1 No change 0.5 No change No. 2 CWRS - - 0.2 1.5 1.0 No. 3 CWRS - - 0.3 5.0 3.0

Pulse grading

To address concerns about the safe storage of chick peas, the committee recommended narrowing the moisture content range used for "tough" grades of chick peas, from 14.1%- 18.0% down to 14.1%- 16.0%. The proposed change in moisture range for chick peas is subject to the regulatory amendment process and would become effective Aug. 1, 2001.

The WSC also lent its support to a new fair colour guide sample prepared by the CGC for No. 2 and Extra No. 3 Canada Yellow Peas. The new guide sample better reflects the levels of immaturity and earth tag allowed within the standard of quality for these grades while maintaining the marketing quality of yellow peas.

New moisture conversion tables for oats and soybeans

The CGC announced it would release new conversion tables for use with the Model 919 Moisture Meter. The new table for low and high moisture soybeans becomes effective July 1, 2001 and replaces the table issued in 1993. The new table for oats becomes effective Aug. 1, 2001, replacing the table issued in 1991. The calibrations, based on samples tested over five to seven crop years, will give higher moisture contents in oats and lower values in soybeans. The new conversion tables will be available at no charge on the CGC web site at http://www.cgc.ca.

The WSC meets twice a year to recommend specifications for grades of grain. During the fall meeting it also recommends standard samples of grain for each grade of grain. The committee members include 12 farmers appointed from the major western producer groups, a CGC commissioner, grain inspector and scientist, the chair of the western grain appeal tribunal, and representatives of the Canadian Wheat Board, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, grain processors, and grain exporters. For more information.

The CGC is the federal agency responsible for establishing and maintaining Canada’s grain quality standards. Its programs result in shipments of grain that consistently meet contract specifications for quality, safety and quantity. The CGC regulates the grain industry to protect producers’ rights and ensure the integrity of grain transactions.

[charliep]

The following is the link the press release came from. They have a good backgrounder on the impact of sprout on falling number and baking qualities flour.

http://www.cgc.ca/Views/NewsRel/2001/sproutdamage-e.htm