Canadian Fair Trade Ag Produce

[grassfarmer]

Parsley, How convincing an argument do I need to make? If folks prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la,la,la,cwb-evil,la,la,la" they aren't going to hear it anyway.This thread needn't have been just another anti-cwb one anyway as it started on a valid topic.
Anyway the things you describe about individualism and standing back from the pack pretty well describe what I'm doing - I'm a cattle producer running a breed association of a breed most have never heard of because I believe they have the economically viable traits that most "commodity" breeds lack.
I agree that individual farmers themselves know what is best for their individual farms. We have different cattle, we manage them totally different to the average producer and we are building a high margin marketplace for their beef through direct marketing.

I am that person you describe standing apart from the crowd AND I'm an NFU member and there is nothing incompatible about the two. The NFU does not seek to control anything I do as an independent businessman.

[silverback]

So agstar knows best about which tractor brand we should be buying as well?

Anyone who doesn't have red equipment is just stupid?

Let me think, how many tractor choices were there in the old soviet union? Combines?

What kind of marketing system did they have?

Hmmmmmmmm... maybe RedStar77 would be a better handle?

[agstar77]

So you think branding food organic that is no better nutritionally or purer , but more expensive,is better than cleaning up the enviroment? You really are out for the money. Do you really think the disadvantaged can afford your Branded produce or only the Yuppies? Most of the unwanted substances in all food are a product of our modern culture not the fertilizer or pesticides we use. So until you stop driving your vehicle and using all the junk we don't need don't tell me that Organic labelling will make a difference.

[parsley]

I find your reasoning ability consistently lacking reason.

Organics has always been about:

1. Marketing locally produced food.
2. Growing what the consumer wants to eat.
3. Getting more money from the consumer into the farmer's pocket.
4. Being environmentally conscious.
5. Value-adding in our communities
6. Standing behind our product 100%, with our names on our bags and an audit trail to boot.

If you don't like the goods, please don't buy them agstar. You are fortunate to have that choice.

I would suggest that you concentrate on what you do best.

I can't seem to recall what your best is....


Oh, yes, whining, berating, and trying to claim organics was the CWB's idea.

Right.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Agstar77,

JUST How do you think the water and air get poluted in the first place?

As I clearly stated, conserving energy and preserving our environment are goals we spend cash on every day... Balance my friend... Balance.

Clearly the CWB ran until 1993 without putting anyone in jail or stopping farmers from an independant opportunity to return a premium gained by hard work, risk, and individual initiative. The CWB is going to reward Organic Growers with a partial reprieve by charging $5/t instead of $20-50/t for export licenses.

We all know this did nothing to create a "fair trade" price for our grain, as this was not an objective worthy of discussion when I brought it up.

I was told By CWB Managers that buyers could care less what we got.

I don't believe this is reality for a mili-second... people of integrity work on the principal that a deal is only a good deal... if it is good for both sides! Taking the export risk premium of $20-50/t away from growers with initiative... stopped the trade for the most part, did not keep the price up, and added an insignificant amount to the pool accounts.

A failure on all sides to attaining a "fair trade" price for our grain.

Now, Agstar77, how do we get the CWB on track, and make it a "Fair Trade" based organisation?

[agstar77]

Nice platitudes , but I see you really never denied anything I said about organics. I never mentioned the big bad bogeyman on Main St.

[parsley]

First of all, agatar , you say:


1. "Good old supply and demand except we have not learned to choke off supply."

So obviously you want to stymie production.

Then, of all ridiculous things, you say, " People with large disposable incomes can afford to satisfy their fears".

So you want less food, and who is going to be able to afford it, agstar?

You currently seem to resent rich people paying a premium to organics, so if there is less production, the rich can afford to pay more, but what about the rest?

Or are you also planning on selecting the people who are allowed to purchase that limited supply?

Catholics can starve, Baptists get to eat, tall people starve, shorties get to eat, men starve, women get to eat, Nigerians starve, Saudis get to eat.

Hey, you're on a roll, agstar!


Here sits agstar, legs crossed in yoga position, daisy in hand, "It's like..man... picking petals on a daisy...he eats, guess she doesn't, ... theys eats, guess thems donts...."



2. BRANDING is the CWB's hot new vision. You used the word. Branding.


3. Safety issue: You want to have a debate on the food safety issue? I thought the topic was Canadian Fair Trade.

I'm not afraid to wade into that debate, agstar, but I don't think this is the appropriate thread.

I will make one statement about it.

Ask any person in Canada this question:

"Do you prefer food grown with or without pesticides?"

For organics, the consumer, the eater, the food preparationist, the parent, all of them, are always right.

Listen to your consumer replies and quit being an obnoxious peer.

Parsley

[parsley]

And remember, agstar, your favorite consumer probably lives in Somalia.

Mine is a high income family in North America.
We cannot be business partners, agstar. We don't even talk the same language.

Parsley

[Lifer]

Can you be fair to everyone?

The CWB continues to work to be fair to all wheat growers in western Canada through pooling. Have they been successful? (now that is a rhetorical question)

What is fair?
Calculations made for one farm do not necessarily apply to another. Each of us may look at it differently. One might think I should make more then a hockey player because I work harder then a hockey player.

[TOM4CWB]

Lifer,

We know the CWB Buy Back is not any answer... stopping a 40t sale at a $2000 premium that is paid mostly because of higher risk, more work, to in turn distribute to pooling folks in a 12mmt pool... is insane and does nothing for anyone.

We should look at what coffee and chocolate people do, as well our Supply Managment folks have some good ideas as well!

[TOM4CWB]

Agstar77,

For the saftey of food, Perception is reality... as it is for 99% of physical/economic things here on earth!

DO you understand the perception the CWB has created... and that you did not deny here... that the CWB is not being a responsible member of our sales team...

The perception that the "single desk" gets in the way of: making a tighter more efficeint supply chain, fair trade prices, and personal relationships that build trust!

I understand you are going into a CWB Strategic Planning Session this week, what practical strategies are you going to create, to become facilitators that build strong relationships... between growers and end users... to fix the above noted problems:

1. The CWB Stopping the flow of producers produce to end user consumers;

2. The perception on Malt barley that the CWB works to procure barley at discount below cost prices... for the profit and benefit of multi-national brewers;

3. That the buyback scheme in reality stops business between growers and end users... adds a barrier that stops profitable relationships from developing, and adds an insignificant amount to the pool accounts (less than 1%) thereby failing on all counts its' objectives.

Agstar77, if respect for the individual, a fair price grain policy, and the long term bests interests of the CWB Corporation are the objective of your Strategic Planning session...

You have a big job in changing the CWB Managers/Directors perception that the "Single Desk" is the reason the CWB exists... to a service oriented corporation that facilitates the needs and aspirations of growers for a profitable human consumption wheat product, and fair return on investment.

What practical strategies are you going to bring to the CWB Strategic Table to meet these priorities?

Why is the CWB in Federal Court, the 25th of July in Calgary, working directly against these priorities?

[grassfarmer]

You are at it again Tom, "We should look at what coffee and chocolate people do, as well our Supply Managment folks have some good ideas as well!" Aren't the supply management commodities in Canada the model of Government controlled, regulated marketplaces that you constantly want to do away with? Once again I see you are backing the NFU stance of retaining supply management. It seems you really are seeing the light!

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer;

All systems have good points and bad points. I believe the best system possible will combine the best strengths of the most productive systems to meet the objectives we are responsible to acheive.

PM Harper didn't buy 2 Ice Breakers that cost 5 billion, he bought 3 that cost 3 billion, yet acheive the principals that need to be met.

I couldn't be plainer in my example of Maple sugar... supply management; and the good points their system in Quebec has in allowing a measure of personal responsibility and the ability to prosper individually.

This should be all about balance and practical economics...

The NFU has a big problem on the CWB issue. So does Wild Rose in Alberta.

Can we be mature people and resolve our differences... work together for the betternment of our future generation of farmers? I think we owe them no less. Now grassfarmer... how did your statements help build the bridge to make this a possiblity?

[grassfarmer]

Tom "Can we be mature people and resolve our differences... work together for the betternment of our future generation of farmers? I think we owe them no less." ....fair comment I'm all for that, in unity is strength after all!
But as to how did my "statements help build the bridge to make this a possiblity?" that's a bit hypocritical coming from someone who spends all his time ranting on this site about destroying the CWB and by implication attacking it's supporters at every opportunity.

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer,

You said:

"coming from someone who spends all his time ranting on this site about destroying the CWB and by implication attacking it's supporters at every opportunity."

I catch it at home from my better half for trying too hard to save the CWB.

From what I have posted here... how do you get to this statement...? You are accepting the CWB "single desk" deception... which I know will in the end destroy the CWB faster than any other single factor.

We reap what we sow. I strongly believe the rewards the CWB will reap by earning growers business... will strenghten it...

Where as the maintance of the "single desk" as operational now... will mean the CWB's demise within 5 years.

The worst possible long term strategic outcome for the CWB Corporation... from the July Federal Court hearing in Calgary... is if the CWB barley monopoly is ordered back into force August 1 2007.