16 Years of Pea Marketing Information

[lakenheath]

I graphed out (from 1991 to 2007) historical data on yellow field peas. The data I used was seeded acres, production, average yield (in our RM's), average price and carry-in and carry-out stocks.

I graphed price in relation to overall production 1991 to 2006, seeded acres to production 1991 to 2006 and price to area yield 1991 to 2006. The rest of the data I put in columns from 1991 to 2007 for quick reference.

The data is very interesting. The average price from 1991 to 2006 is $4.57 a bushel. Looking at the data going into 2007 (govnt. predicting a 5% drop in acres) tells me that locking in as much now for $5.00 or $5.50 is a very good idea.

If anyone wants my excel spreadsheet just give me your e-mail address and I will sent it to you.

I compiled my data from Statistics Canada and the Goverment of Saskatchewan.

I used to have access to monthly pea market prices going back to 1991 but I can no longer access this information from SK Govnt. web-site with the new changes. So the information I have is just yearly averages. Plotting monthly price trends is very intersting but I only have data up to 2003.

[Fransisco]

Here it is, in all it's glory.


Canadian Wheat Board: "Our apologies for the awkwardness"

Background, via a reader: "The Ag minister wrote an op-ed letter in January, wherein he made certain price comparisons on wheat. The CWB is mass mailing prairie newspapers in reply. But instead of trying to directly challenge the comments made by Strahl, the CWB is trying to “correct” the newspaper’s “erroneous price comparisons”. Here’s what happens when one editor points out that the CWB ought to state that Strahl had his numbers wrong. Enjoy!"

Correspondence with a Saskatchewan weekly newspaper from Heather Frayne, CWB Communications Consultant:


(1) Heather Frayne original letter:
Woops. Sent you the wrong letter. Here is the right one. (She had first sent the one intended for the Whitewood Herald).

Heather Frayne
CWB communications consultant (acting)

__________________

The following is a letter to the editor regarding erroneous price comparisons in an article in the January 24 issue of The ***.

It was suggested in the January 24 issue of the *** that an Ontario farmer currently selling hard red spring wheat with 13.5 per cent protein would receive $5.50 per bushel, whereas a grower on the Prairies selling 1CWRS would receive about $4.40 per bushel as a final pool return - approximately $1.10 less. The implication is that this is because of poor performance by the CWB. That implication is incorrect, because of several errors in the comparison.

To begin with, the comparison relates a spot price (the Ontario price) to a pool value (the CWB Pool Return Outlook). This is a misleading comparison. A pool value is by definition an average of prices achieved over an entire crop year. In a rising market such as we have experienced so far this crop year, a spot price is always higher than a pooled price. Is the CWB selling wheat at those "high" Ontario values and returning those dollars to farmers? Yes. In fact, CWB values are even higher, as noted below.

The Ontario farmer spot price of $5.50 per bushel is presumably a price at or near an Ontario mill. Therefore, an appropriate comparison would be the current price of CWB wheat landed at an Ontario mill. On February 5, the CWB offered eastern mills No.1 CWRS with 13.5 per cent protein for $230.47 per tonne at Thunder Bay. Add to this freight charges of $25 from Thunder Bay to the mill, and the landed price equals $255.47 per tonne or $6.95 per bushel.

The comparison, then, is between $5.50 per bushel of hard red spring wheat to the Ontario farmer and $6.95 per bushel for CWB wheat sold in Ontario. This $6.95 per bushel would be added to the pooled payments western farmers receive for wheat sold throughout the 2006-07 crop year.

Because the CWB's Ontario sales prices are based on competitive North American values, western farmers can obtain similar cash values today under the CWB's other pricing options such as our Daily Price Contract.

It appears that Ontario farmers are receiving prices that are significantly under current market values.

The truth, therefore, is the exact opposite: CWB prices are higher.

Sincerely,
Gord Flaten,
CWB Vice-President, Marketing

Heather Frayne
CWB communications consultant (acting)

(2) Editor’s Reply:
Hi Heather,

I looked for the article in question. The information appeared, not in an internally generated piece, but in an op-ed provided by Chuck Strahl, our minister of agriculture. As a hint, and since I know you're sending this to everyone who runs the op-eds from Strahl, if you want editors to run your piece, you should not try to make it look like we made a mistake - since we didn't! If you want to reword your letter to be more accurate - that being that 'in an article by Chuck Strahl, minister of agriculture, which appeared in many publications in Saskatchewan,' ... you might actually have a shot
at getting your side in print. As it is now .. best of luck, you'll need it.

(3) Letter from Heather Frayne:
Hi **,

I just called 306-** and left a message for you with a man whose name I didn't catch. He said he would ask you to call when you get back in.

I appreciate your comments, and agree absolutely that more specific information would have been useful and appropriate. Unfortunately, because of the gag order and the political environment in which we're trying to operate, I wasn't at liberty to include those details. In other words, I'm relying on editors and publishers to understand the reference--like you, most are well aware of what they've published and what they haven't--and joining the dots for their readers.

So... all the best. And my apologies for the awkwardness.

(4) Editor’s Reply:
Hello Heather,

What gag order would that be? The one that says that you cannot bad-mouth your boss - the minister of agriculture, Chuck Strahl? … I know it must be frustrating to try to mount a campaign against the guy who signs your pay checks, but I do not believe in 'inferences.' To run your letter without being specific, not only serves to make me look bad, it serves to make you look bad as well.

(5) Heather Trayne Reply:
You are, of course, under no obligation to correct misinformation that you have previously published.

I, like all employees of the CWB, am paid by the farmers of western Canada for whom I work, not by the Minister of Agriculture.

(6) Editor’s Reply:
I didn't say you worked for him, I said he signed your pay checks.

You know something Heather, better still, why don't you take this up with Chuck. He's the one who 'provided' misinformation, if in fact he did, and he is the one you should be addressing - through a letter to the editor, naming him as the culprit... and as for working for the farmers of western Canada ... I'm from Ontario and I know exactly who you're working for, not having been brought up on the fairy tale.

[Fransisco]

Are ya kidding me??

[grainboy]

please send to grainboy2@yahoo.ca

Thanks

[BennyHin]

"Jaw dropping, incredible,groundbreaking research journalism", "way to go Parsley for breaking the story.


What is going on at the CWB? How dare they!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

Way to go Frisco, fantastic commentary and insight. You are doing wonders on this site to further our marketing know-how. keep it up.

[parsley]

This is no joke.

So who is Heather Frayne?

-worked for years as a radio and television producer for the CBC.

-Born in England

- works part-time as an assistant to a Member of Parliament. I don't think it's Strahl!

-lives in Winnipeg.
Who is paying Heather Frayne?

So the next thing is Gord Flaten....this is his letter.

Shouldn't he be the one fired?


Parsley

[parsley]

You approve BennyHinn?

Parsley

[BennyHin]

Yeah right!

[parsley]

I'm asking you seriously, BH. Are you ok with the CWB launching a change-your-mind campaign in the middle of voting WITH YOUR MONEY?

Parsley

[Fransisco]

"Unfortunately, because of the gag order and the political environment in which we're trying to operate, I wasn't at liberty to include those details. In other words, I'm relying on editors and publishers to understand the reference--like you, most are well aware of what they've published and what they haven't--and joining the dots for their readers."

Looks like a pretty cut and dried case of spending farmers money on another propaganda campaign in violation of the federal order in council.

Imagine what they might accomplish if they put this much work into marketing crops instead of marketing B.S.