Earlier this year, in response to a reader’s query, I discussed ownership of dockage.
In looking at court cases (there were none), reviewing regulations and discussing the matter with the Canadian Grain Commission, I concluded that even though a farmer was not paid for dockage, it indeed belonged to the grain company.
I also concluded that there was a secondary market for dockage. There are even federal regulations establishing grades for screenings. The 1999 Alberta case, AGP vs. Chinook Grain, is a good example of the trade in screenings. It involved breach of contract.
Read Also
Stock dogs show off herding skills at Ag in Motion
Stock dogs draw a crowd at Ag in Motion. Border collies and other herding breeds are well known for the work they do on the farm.
The plaintiff, trading under the name Masterfeeds, used the screenings to make feed pellets and poultry feed. The court found the contract was for wheat, barley and canola screenings.
While there is a market for the screenings, farmers do not receive a benefit from such sales. Several producers wrote or called to express how the current legal regime is unfair.
G.B. wrote “as
recent as this February I delivered to a licensed elevator wheat contracted under CWB regulations. By the fourth semi load I was present when dockage was assessed as 0.6 percent; when I had unloaded and checked the unload ticket I realized dockage was reported as one percent. I demanded that 0.6 percent was to be recorded and the employee replied to me that management expected to have no dockage lower than one reported.”
The farmer said he calculated the difference in dockage weight below one percent and on his total deliveries it would have amounted to almost two tonnes in favour of the company.
“While I was trucking my grain I observed a lot of trucks custom hauling for farmers and recognized that almost nobody really cared to be vigilant during the grading process.”
A.S. noted that farmers have dockage assessed and also pay to have the grain cleaned and then, before export, some screenings could be added back in.
“If I delivered grain with one percent dockage and if export standards are two percent dockage, then I should not have to pay for cleaning.”
L.L. wrote, “the producer owns the dockage without question, just like the grain that it is found in, and if that dockage has value, then the value must be passed back to the rightful owner, the producer.”
Screenings are no longer simply dumped in the slough, one correspondent noted.
Obviously, farmers can attempt to negotiate a different delivery contract with grain companies. But a single farmer is not likely to be successful. This is not a case of equal bargaining power. Farmers can work together to get changes or they can lobby for a change in the Canada Grains Act and the regulations to recognize that dockage (screenings) are the producer’s property, that there is a market for them and that the farmer should get some benefit from this.
As most readers are aware, lobbying to change federal regulations is not an easy task.
Don Purich is a former practising lawyer who is now involved in publishing, teaching and writing about legal issues. His columns are intended as general advice only. Individuals are encouraged to seek other opinions and/or personal counsel when dealing with legal matters.
