hardcore vs soft core

[Ron]

just wondering about the advantages and drawbacks of each. thanks

[rookie]

If you are looking for cheaper balers for only your own use , then soft works. I make a couple thousand a year and it all works but wish it was a hard core instead. Trucking is sometimes tricky when older soft cores go a little flat. They go through a processor fine and as for baling a bit on the tougher side , I don't anyway. Hope that helps some.....good luck...

[cowman]

Go for the hardcore if you ever intend to sell hay. No one wants softcore bales. If you are just baling it for yourself a soft core baler works very well. I believe you can bale hay a little tougher than with a hard core because the bale can breathe a bit. Soft core balers got a bad reputation because a lot of people don't know how to use them. You have to really pack them tight and you definitely need a small crop saver bar if you intend to do rotary straw.
I believe the best hardcore baler is the John Deere 566.

[charliep]

1) Why don't Canadian flour mills seek out more direct relationships with farmers? Alberta maltsters are currently doing about 50 % of their sourcing using direct programs (through the CWB pricing system of course)? I often wonder why their are not more variety/quality programs offered by domestic flour mills.

2) How much of their reluctance is based on the fact that the CWB price differentiates their offering to domestic flour mills based on final customer? Wheat sold for flour destined for the North American market is priced off North American prices. Flour sold to Africa/South America in competition with European or Aussie wheat is priced off these respective markets. A flour mills basic way of making money (assuming similar efficiency) is margin/t and through put. The current system allows them to do that in a relatively safe and risk managed environment.

[AdamSmith]

Charlie, reason and logic will not yield the right answer when your confronted with a system that is NOT based on logical and resonable theories. The wheat and barley system in MB,SK and AB is based on two things only. FEAR and LIES.

The LIES can been seen in this latest attempt by the CWB and the Ontario millers to explain why the Ontario system doesn't work.

They're both saying that a dual system is dysfunctional.

The millers say it is dysfunctional for them because they can no longer do one stop shopping with a supplier who is all to willing to settle for a price which is less than what the marketplace will ask for. They're greivance with the dual system is that the marketplace (farmers,brokers, competitors etc.)tries and often succeeds, as it would appear, to capture the highest price available at that time. They obviously don't have that problem with a single desk system.

The CWB says, and here is the lie, that the dual system is dysfunctional because farmers are recieving a lower price.

Here's the relevant portion of a June 12 CWB news release;

In addition, the report makes reference to grain producers in Ontario and Quebec ‘enjoying increasing flexibility’ in the marketing of their wheat and barley. "Those producers are also ‘enjoying’ lower prices, and the Ontario milling industry finds the dual marketing system in Ontario so dysfunctional that it has asked for the complete removal of the marketing powers of the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board," Ritter explained. "In the meantime, the wheat and barley processing industry in Western Canada is stable and growing and farmers are receiving premium prices from this market.

They're both talking about the same situation but the millers say it causes the price to go "UP" and the CWB says the price goes "DOWN".

The truth is "BLACK" the CWB says "WHITE"

This is just the most recent, and dare I say open and obvious, CWB lie. But rest assured most of what they claim and say is a lie.

The other fundemental part of the system is FEAR. They use fear in two ways.

1. The CWB tell farmers the CWB can't survive a dual system and tell farmers that only the brokers and multinational grain companies will profit under a free market system. This is the famous CWB fear campaign that we're going to see alot from this summer and fall.

2. The other, and even more sinister, use of FEAR as a tool of the CWB is the FEAR of RETRIBUTION.

An example would be if say a grain company like Cargill were to get involved in the Barley Plebicite that we had a few years back. And lets just suppose they decided to distribute a pamplet supporting the open market option. The CWB would not be to pleased about this and they would want to "teach Cargill a lesson". And lets say Cargill had some business pending to load a couple of boats of wheat in Baie-Comeau and those boats which were booked to arive, never did. A little while later word would get back to Cargill that those boats would have arrived had Cargill not got involed in the barley vote.

That is an example of how the fear of retribution might be implimented.

So to wrap up my point Charlie, what you suggest is reasonable and logical but sadly that's foreign language to our current system.

[TOM4CWB]

Adamsmith,

It is amazing that the Western Producer editorial staff was all taken in on this issue as well, they didn't get it either!

At any time Ontario millers can import US wheat, of whatever quality they need, at world prices.

Yet when the dual marketing system in Ontario extracts more than what the OWPMB (Ont. Board) used to be able to sell it for, then the millers squack and complain.

The Ont. Board can get more for the wheat than they did before, because the threat of export through the exemption system around the monopoly means the millers can't bluff, they must pay fair market value.

Farmers in Ontario are the big winners, and the millers must pay fair market value.

Yet why doesn't anyone in western Canada put these two facts together, in the traditional farm media?

Only in Canada you say!!!

[TOM4CWB]

Note that Rowley mentions that when they price the product with the OWPM Board, they have to go to the brokers to get the grain they've already priced. It is the middleman squeeze that he is referring to that pushes up the price, and it is not reflected in an increase in cash pricing back to the farmer. It's the fact that the OWPMB has no facilities, so sourcing the grain is left to the grain merchants.

[chaffmeister]

There’s something that doesn’t add up here for me:

1. Howard Rowley of the OFMA is quoted as saying, " The dual system is dysfunctional".
2. In the CWB press release responding to the Standing Ag Committee’s Recommendation 14, Ken Ritter comments on the Ontario situation and is quoted as saying "…the Ontario milling industry finds the dual marketing system in Ontario so dysfunctional that it has asked for the complete removal of the marketing powers of the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board”.
3. Thalpenny reinforced the comment by Rowley that "Millers are having a difficult time accessing grain. If we go through the board, we pay them, but then have to find the grain through brokers or directly to farmers. When brokers know you are looking for grain, stocks suddenly become tight and the price goes up". Thalpenny concludes, “It is the middleman squeeze that he is referring to that pushes up the price, and it is not reflected in an increase in cash pricing back to the farmer. It's the fact that the OWPMB has no facilities, so sourcing the grain is left to the grain merchants.”

If thalpenny is right and the middleman is squeezing the market, why would the millers say they want the removal of the board? That won’t take away the problem of the grain merchants “squeezing” the market.

Thalpenny suggests that the fact that the OWPMB has no facilities is why the markets get squeezed. Grain is handled through this system whether it is through the board or not. Why isn’t Rowley asking for the removal or regulation of brokers since they are the ones able to cause higher prices to the millers?

Rowley also says, “When brokers know you are looking for grain, stocks suddenly become tight and the price goes up”. But he also says he goes directly to farmers – seems to me that if “brokers” try to extract a premium, farmers feel the effect as well because the miller can go direct and pay the farmer a price competitive with the price the broker is showing the miller.

It appears that Rowley’s complaints are concerning grain they buy through the board – not the grain they would buy on the open market. Why is that?

[chaffmeister]

One more question:
Thalpenny - Where is it documented that the increase in price via brokers does not reflect back to farmers?

It seems to me that competition for farmers' grain may be driving these higher prices. This same competition will not allow one broker to extract a higher price than the others. If the brokers are simply reflecting the price the farmers are demanding before releasing their grain, perhaps the board sold it too cheap in the first place. (After all, this is grain that was priced with the board initially.)

All comments welcomed.

[charliep]

Similar questions to chaffmeister.

1) If costs of sourcing their Ontario Wheat Board supplies are to high, why don't the mills go direct to farmers. A note that API buys both CWB and non board.

2) Where do the mills buy from the Ontario Wheat Board? In store elevator? Track? Delivered flour mill? If their are concerns about/confusion around sourcing product, why not have the Ontario Wheat Board do their sales delivered plant?