PRINCE ALBERT, Sask. – Some farmers may want changes to the Canadian Wheat Board’s pooling system, but none of them showed up to press their case at a CWB meeting last week.
In fact, the future of pooling generated virtually no discussion among farmers attending the marketing agency’s corporate accountability meeting.
That, despite the fact local CWB director Ian McCreary made a point of highlighting the issue in his formal presentation to the 40 or so farmers in attendance.
As far as McCreary is concerned, the silence on the subject is an indication that most farmers like the pooling system the way it is.
Read Also
Factors that can cause heavy rainfall
There are several factors that can contribute to an extreme rainfall event, the first is atmospheric moisture.
He said feedback from nine small focus groups and two larger public meetings held in his district during the previous three weeks has been clear.
“The message I’ve been taking back to the board table is that any tampering with the pooling system that reflects anything other than the fair annual average price isn’t the message I’ve been hearing from farmers.”
The board of directors has been considering whether farmers are best served by the existing pooling system or whether alternatives would provide a net financial benefit.
Farmers are already able to price grain outside the pool using fixed price or basis contracts. Other more radical proposals have been floated around the board table, including year-round cash pricing, shorter pooling periods, separate pools for separate contracts and allowing farmers to price grain into specific markets.
None has been approved and no major changes are planned for 2004-05.
McCreary said most farmers support offering a variety of options for marketing CWB grains, but those options must not undermine pooling.
That was the view expressed by several farmers interviewed after the meeting.
“I believe in the pooling system but I also think that giving people options in the context of single desk selling is acceptable,” said Alice Borden, who farms near Prince Albert.
Farmers are becoming more adept at using the internet and other resources to gather information about markets but the “vast majority” of producers appreciate the protection they receive from pooling, she said.
Len Thurmeier, who farms at Perdue, Sask., said marketing alternatives are fine, if they don’t interfere with pooling or take money out of the pool accounts.
He also wonders how widespread the demand for pricing options really is, judging by the limited number of farmers who use the options available.
McCreary said only 754 farmers used the fixed price and basis contracts this year.
“I think it’s fair to say that the overwhelming majority of farmers have voted with their feet over the last three or four years, when the options have been there, and said ‘the pooling system is still a very important risk management tool for me,’ ” McCreary said.
Borden said even if few farmers use the non-pooling options, it’s important they are available.
“I think it helps alleviate the resistance, small but vocal, to the existing system,” she said.
