After considerable debate, the Canadian Wheat Board has come up with a policy on organic wheat and barley.
It’s a policy that has been well received by board supporters and soundly trashed by anti-board factions in the organic industry.
The board has made two major changes to the way it handles the export and domestic human consumption of organic wheat and barley.
The buy-back process has been streamlined. Farmers will deal directly with the board rather than paying from $5 to $15 per tonne for grain companies to administer the buy-back. Under the buy-back, producers sell their wheat or barley to the board and then buy it back at a spot price based on the Minneapolis grain exchange.
Read Also
Squid fertilizer draws interest at Ag In Motion
GreenFlow says its Squid Juice might elicit a smile or chuckle, but insists the fertilizer and its benefits are for real.
The second change is that the board will extend credit to eliminate the up-front costs of buy-backs.
“This simplifies the process for organic farmers who want to find their own buyers,” said board chair Ken Ritter.
“By changing the Producer Direct Sale (buy-back) and offering credit arrangements, we’re making the process easier and more flexible for farmers. It should also save them some of the additional costs they have to pay the grain companies for administering the program.”
A group pushing for an exemption from the board’s monopoly is “extremely disappointed” with the new policy.
“There’s no place for the wheat board monopoly in organic marketing. We’ve developed our own markets, of course, and there’s just no place for compulsory forced marketing as the only source of marketing in organics,” said Organics Special Products Group spokesperson John Husband.
“They are expropriating organic farm-held grain, which is outside of the Canadian Wheat Board system and the wheat board act doesn’t authorize them to do that.”
Board spokesperson Tom Halpenny said giving the organic sector an exemption from the board’s monopoly would have set a precedent for other identity preserved grains such as genetically modified wheat and barley.
“(That would) enable the products that may be directly competitive with the board to have sort of this free reign as opposed to having to go through the buy-back process.”
Board supporter and organic grower Ian Cushon said the new policy is “pretty much” what organic farmers who were frustrated with the old buy-back process were looking for.
He is particularly pleased with the credit arrangement aspect of the new policy.
“It’s a major step forward and I think it will alleviate some of the concerns that farmers have,” said Cushon.
If the buy-back price is higher than the board’s initial or interim payment for that grain, an organic producer could owe the board money until they collect from their buyer.
The board’s new credit arrangement allows organic producers to borrow that money until they are paid. The outstanding loan will be changed to reflect any adjustments in the initial or interim payments.
“It’s covering off the cash flow from the time the producer initiates the transaction until such time as it concludes,” said Halpenny. “This isn’t going to be a totally gratis program. There will be some interest costs that will be covered off by the farmer.”
Marc Loiselle has been growing organic grain on his farm near Vonda, Sask., for 15 years. He was hoping the board would allow producers to avoid the buy-back altogether, but said the new policy is an improvement.
“It’s obviously more acceptable than what was there,” said Loiselle.
“You were sometimes in a position where you had to finance the buy-back, which is completely ridiculous.”
Husband said his group will continue to fight for a change to the board’s new policy. They are hoping a slate of dual-market candidates will be elected to the board and overturn the decision.
The vote counting for elections for half of the director positions is expected to be complete before Dec. 18.
The new organic policy will be in place in January, said Halpenny.
