Juxtapose
One is often amused by the serendipitous juxtaposition of conflicting media messages.
The March 9 issue of The Western Producer presented a fine example. Pages 28 and 29 were filled by a two-page spread on farm safety and hazards faced by farm workers.
Turn the page to 31 for adventures on ice.
Farmers who manage to avoid the hazards of their workplace may enjoy some leisure time in a bathing suit and bare feet to race up an ice wall supported by chicken wire.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
Now that is what I call serendipitous juxtaposition.
– Allan Liggins,
Coquitlam, B.C.
Market power
The Conservative victory has reanimated the (Western) Canadian Wheat Growers Association’s effort to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. The federal government’s attempts to “reform” the CWB are wrapped in platitudes of market liberalization as endorsed by the George Morris Centre (WP, Feb. 23) and are clearly ignoring the CWB directors, who are elected by producers.
Publicity garnered by these agribusiness think tanks makes board supporters, like myself, nervous. We must consider that protecting the current mandate of the CWB from a defensive position will meet with failure.
If the government sincerely wishes to offer more marketing choices to the minority of producers who do not agree with the single desk advantage, then they must offer choices to board supporters. Specifically, the choice to market pulses, oilseeds and oats through the non-profit, professional marketing agency.
Canadian primary producers are currently suffering the catastrophic results of having individualized market power in open market crops. Mr. Easter’s report points out that the rest of the agriculture industry, upstream and downstream from the farmgate, is thriving.
The last thing Canadian producers need is federal agricultural policy drafted for the bottom line of agribusiness, not farm families.
It is entirely possible that the new government will capitulate to the World Trade Organization by agreeing that the CWB monopoly causes market distortions. This argument simply does not fly because the so-called “free” market is actually a myth; a construct used to place producers into direct competition with one another.
Yet, when a small number of huge international conglomerates gain control of markets, farmers are doomed to accept disastrously low commodity prices. Real market distortions that hurt farmers the most are those created by Monsanto’s near monopoly on biotechnology or the sheer market power of Cargill and ADM. See: ADM’s share price hits record high based on “lower corn costs,” WP, Feb. 9.
Canadian beef producers felt the negative impact of market distortions created by vertically integrated multinational meat packers during the BSE calamity.
Will Chuck Strahl and Stephen Harper create agricultural policies that will protect producers from the deleterious effects of corporate power? Not likely, since they did not support an investigation into the meat packers’ unfair profit taking at the expense of Canadian producers and consumers.
Producers, who do not look forward to seeing the CWB hobbled to please the minority of producers and corporate speculators, must stand united and demand that changes to the board will increase our marketing power in all crops.
– J. Ross Murray,
Young, Sask.
Mobile butchers
The reason farmers are using mobile butchers is because it’s the only sure way of knowing that they are really getting back their own meat. All of their own meat.
As far as inspection goes, when farmers kill beef for their own use, they usually don’t pick the oldest, weakest or sickest in the herd.
As to cleanliness of the mobile shop, I’m sure Farmer Joe can check that out for himself. I’ve really had it up to here with people using fear to limit our choices so they can make more money.
– M. Reid,
Eckville, Alta.
Choose a name
In reply to a letter recently written by a lady from Saskatoon (Open Forum, March 2) and the comments that “the best of all leaders are the ones who live their creed.”
It was OK for Belinda Stronach to cross over to the Liberals, but it is not OK for David Emerson?
When a party like the Liberals did the terrible, disgraceful, crooked things such as the sponsorship scandal, never mind numerous other things we don’t even know about, how can she even think of running down Stephen Harper without giving him a chance?
He’s only been prime minister a few weeks. The Liberals did nothing in 12 years.
Some people are so brainwashed by the party they vote for (that) they could take the food right off their plate and they would still vote for them.
Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien really lived their creed. They lived what they are. I let you use your own name for them.
– Bernice Tiringer,
Spiritwood, Sask.
SRM removal
Alberta has 111 licensed mobile butchers that provide a service of on-farm slaughter. Unfortunately, our government licensed them, but overlooked the vital point of monitoring the removal of the specified risk material in cattle 30 months of age and older.
If every mobile butcher slaughters only one beef per week that is over 30 months (of age), we are looking at 5,772 animals per year causing possible major health risks as well as giving R-CALF in the United States probable cause to have the border closed to Alberta beef once again.
As the owner of a provincially inspected slaughterhouse, I would like to assure you that the standards are far more stringent, as the removal of SRMs in our plants is monitored by Alberta Agricultural Regulatory Services, as well as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
With all of the problems our agricultural community has faced due to BSE, I feel this is an issue that should have been addressed in the mobile industry when the new regulations were introduced on Aug. 24, 2003.
Can our health system afford the major health risk of consumers eating the SRM and can our farming industry afford R-CALF winning a court injunction because of this overlooked issue?
– Marla Kikel,
Bashaw, Alta.
Buy the cars
For more than a decade the deal to sell the Canadian government-owned grain cars has been talked about at meeting after meeting by farm organizations, farmers and governments of all levels.
We as farmers thought the debate was over. The Farmer Rail Car Coalition, after even more study and debate, put together a deal. It looked like at last a conclusion had finally been reached. The cars are already partially owned by farmers as Canadian taxpayers. So it’s logical that farmers buy them. Then they would have some influence over what the railways do with the cars.
Then we have an election. A change in ideology. It is an easy slogan during an election, “it’s time for a change.” Change for ideology is not always the best change for everyone concerned.
The new federal minister of agriculture says there will be no rapid change. For example in the Feb. 16 issues of the Western Producer he says “the issue of the marketing monopoly will not be dealt with in isolation” and “how to deal with issues of rail deregulation, rail car ownership and access to export points”?
In the same issue, the Western Producer reports “rail car agreement faces new obstacles.” Various organizations speak out against rail car deal. It’s not too hard to put the meat of the two Producer articles together and see what it means for farmers.
The new government wants continued control of the rail cars. It would be more difficult for large grain companies to function without a Canadian Wheat Board if the farmers owned the cars.
Farmers speak out, let’s buy the cars. Many farmers already use the cars on short-line railroads shipping producer cars. How long would that last with the railways controlling the cars or worse an international grain company owning the fleet and no Canadian Wheat Board?
– Fred Liggett,
Pangman, Sask.
Only in theory
The arguments for retention of the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board by Wendy Holm in The Western Producer (March 9) only work in theory. In practical application, the CWB with its monopoly powers and its ability and willingness to use draconian methods of enforcement has not delivered the expressed benefits to western Canadian farmers.
The CWB commissioned study by Richard Grey and Harley Furtan, quoted by Ms. Holm, used certain assumptions which did not necessarily reflect reality in world markets. Thus the conclusions are questionable.
Sparks Company studied the CWB performance in the barley market using CWB actual data along with actual sales records in comparable markets, i.e. comparison of CWB export of feed barley based Vancouver to U.S. barley exports based Portland.
Actual data revealed the CWB exported feed barley from Vancouver at lower values than barley exported from Portland four years out of six. In the other two years the CWB sale prices were similar but did not exceed values reached at Portland.
The story was very much the same in malt barley.
By underselling the market of feed barley, the CWB also forces down the domestic feed market, affecting all growers in Western Canada. …
Ms. Holm twists the director election results to support her statement that “more than 73 percent of producers” support the CWB. Less than 40 percent of eligible farmers in Western Canada were sent a ballot because they were not on the CWB generated voter list, and of those farmers only 19 percent actually voted for a candidate who supported the monopoly of the CWB – somewhat less than 73 percent.
Rather than sit on an island off the coast of B.C. and offer us her point of view on the benefits of a socialist system, Ms. Holm should take advantage of the hundreds of farm auctions being held on the Prairies this spring to see if she can make it work where we failed.
– Albert J. Wagner,
Western Barley
Growers Association,
Stony Plain, Alta.
Works in Ontario
I am an Ontario subscriber to The Western Producer. I have been quite amused by the concern our western friends have to the Canadian Wheat Board in respect to dual marketing.
To be honest, I too thought that it would not work. It was not an easy transition for the people at the board level, but we now have a truly excellent, well run operation.
The Ontario (Wheat Producers Marketing) Board now handles approximately 25 percent of the wheat. The pool is very competitive to the marketplace.
Our own millers use 50 percent of our wheat on a low volume year and only 25 percent on a large crop year. The board and the grain companies share all the markets.
The increased competition has increased our returns where wheat is now one of our main crops, instead of a crop to grow some straw and to keep up the rotation.
My suggestion: to let the board earn their business. Pooling is a very good thing for those who do not want to do their own marketing. For those who want to market their own grain, the free enterprise system our country was built on is also very effective.
– Harry Buurma,
Watford, Ont.
Ag solutions
Re:”Farmers hunger, consumers don’t,” WP editorial, March 2.
Do governments need to subsidize farmers to enable them to make a living? I say no. In the long run, subsidies do a farmer no good. When first introduced they put money into the pockets of farmers. In time, land costs and other input costs will rise to meet the value of the subsidization. Young farmers in Europe and the United States, with much higher subsidies, are in as much trouble as us.
So instead of subsidies what can governments do to help farmers?…
Eliminate education tax on farmland. What does education have to do with growing grain? Farmers can be losing money and still pay huge amounts of tax. …
Eliminate the remainder of the property tax. This tax is predominantly used to maintain local RM roads. In exchange for this, farmers should pay tax on the fuel used in their road vehicles. The more you drive, the more you pay. The provincial government would then pay for road upkeep.
Eliminate provincial sales tax on farm expenses. This costs our farm in excess of $1,000 per year. Eliminate the tax on fuel used in field equipment.
Governments and farmers should increase spending at universities to develop new varieties of grain and improve agronomics. Look at the success of the pulse industry. This puts more money into the hands of farmers than any subsidies. The farmers should then own the rights to new developments.
Ag Canada should pay for testing and approval of new chemicals. At present chemical companies are charged for this process. This is, in effect, a tax which the chemical companies need to recover through increased prices. It also prevents companies from marketing chemicals that would be useful on niche crops. Once the patent on a particular chemical is expired it should be possible to make or market generic products without going through the same approval process. This should decrease the cost of farm chemicals.
The duration of patent protection on farm inputs such as chemicals and seed should be decreased. …
Steps should be taken to increase the value of the agricultural products leaving this province. We are at a significant disadvantage to farmers living close to markets when it costs $2 per bushel to transport grain. The cheaper grains should be fed to produce pork, chicken and beef, as well as milk products. Governments should encourage the production of ethanol and biodiesel.
Irrigation should be developed and newer high-value crops should be encouraged. Our dairy industry should be expanded with a constant supply of feed from irrigated land.
The demise of the CWB seems to be inevitable with the tremendous pressure from U.S. and European Union.
However, the federal government should not consider eliminating the CWB without massive reductions in subsidies on the part of the U.S. and the European Union. If that is what they want, make them pay for it, don’t just give it away.
– Phil Simrose,
Mortlach Sask.
