US Co-operative

[charliep]

My definition of farmer fits with tom4cwb - a farm
with a size and potential for profit that is able to
provide the needs of providing a farm family either
currently or down the road. Would not include
whether has used government programs - that is a
matter of need/qualifying.

Agstar - What is your definition of a commercial
farm - particularly as applies to a cooperative form
of ownership (perhaps new gen). The old coops
were based on the purchase of a share for minimal
value. Benefit was paid in terms of patronage - not
investment. The new world requires investors to
put up real money and take a risk position - hence
the need for bigger farmers/access to investment
cash.

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

Just mention that the CWB DID not meet their budget on hedge profits...

That the CWB had a massive gain on basis profits at the expense of growers who were forced by the 'single desk' to use PPO contracts...if they wanted to manage price risk....

That the CWB ran an export license program that stopped all 'designated area' producer direct commercial trade to the northern US... of un-priced 'designated area' wheat... while those US prices were the most profitable in recorded history.

That this 2007-08 year was obviously all about maximising; the CWB's power... not 'designated area' wheat growers' financial returns.

[agstar77]

Income- expense = profit, equates to commercial , not what your politcal philosophy happens to be, defines a commercial farmer as opposed to a hobby farmer. The point is do you believe some of us are more equal than other based on their political persuasion?

[charliep]

From a social standpoint, you are likely right. From a business standpoint in a cooperative or almost anything, a persons say in decision making/proportionate say should reflect their investment and risk stake in an organization.

Interesting, a concept I have often thought about is that the CWB really should have a bigger contingency fund and from there be a new generation cooperative with equity ownership by farmers based on their equity. The hedging/risk management losses make ask the question even more.

Perhaps you are right that the performance measure on page 45 is hedging loss/lost opportunity - a shouda, couda, wouda if you like. The loss on the producer pricing options is real in that it will be paid for by these programs for years through higher CWB adjustments in spite of the fact farmers made good decisions/basis levels covered costs (annual report) in 2007/08 (even endured some pain given 89 % priced below $7) and the losses were really the same as those described page 45. The losses in general should be a draw on the equity fund from all farmer stakeholders and the CWB operations held accountable - my two bits.

[charliep]

in the second last sentence, should read hedging losses on futures transactions. Hedging PPO risk by matching farmer pricing/deliveries against sales would be so much easier/less risky but wouldn't fit the CWB B of D philosophy.

[TOM4CWB]

Agstar77;

5,000ac @ $50/ac = a commercially viable farm... 500ac would require another income source and a much different marketing/income strategy for a family to achieve a 'normal' lifestyle.

[agstar77]

You are right T4 , but it does not mean you could not profit from 500 acres. At the rate farm consolidations are occuring , 5000 acres may not be large enough soon.

[silverback]

At the rate your beloved board can lose and spend money it is no wonder farmers feel the need to go to 5000 and beyond.

How many small farmers do you think would still be around today (supporting our communities) if the board actually achieved premium prices to the rest of the world ? (At the farm gate.)

[Hopperbin]

Agstar I think you need to think outside your little box sometimes.

Mergers and business relationships are normal often one industry cannot function without the other. Big Auto and parts suppliers, steel industry, natural resourses , they all must function together.
Take a step back and look at our north american nitrogen fertilizer industry. Can they do without us? answer is no. Can we do without them?
The answer is more to yes at this point in time.
Same goes for a lot of other big business we deal with. We can merger and create large corporations and have lots of power.

[classicalliberal]

A "corporate farmer" is someone who uses the most high-tech technology and have it pay for itself, someone who uses futures and options to manage price risk, one who knows their costs down to the acre as well as a good return and sells at that price, someone who maximizes inputs to maximize output. A corporate farm is one that treats their farm operation like a business. And a corporate farm is one that is incorporated.

Family Farms from the media and left wing group means that anyone who wants to farm and has no talent to raising and marketing crops should have the right to a decent living and that they should get a higher price than the market for their products even though that exact same product can be bought elsewhere and imported for cheaper. A family farm in this context is someone who thinks that it is their god given right to be a farmer and that if they are not good at it, the market and the government should ensure that they can continue living that lifestyle. A family farm is one that just because their dad, dad's dad, dad's dad's dad's dad's dad's dad was a farmer and that they should also be able to be a farmer.