The Dec. 23 issue ofThe Western Producerhad the article titled “CWB election doesn’t reflect farmer opinion: Ritz.”
Federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz claims that the recent 4:1 pro-monopoly CWB election results do not represent “real farmers.” Each of the recently elected pro-monopoly directors farm more than 3,000 acres, producing thousands of tonnes of grain annually. Aren’t they real farmers?…
Mr. Ritz claims the reduced percentage of votes as a protest by open market supporters. If open/dual market supporters had believed Mr. Ritz’s claim that 62 percent of farmers support open marketing, wouldn’t they have voted for dual market supporters? A more realistic reason for less votes would be the withdraw of previous open market supporters, who chose not to vote rather than voting for CWB single desk supporters.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
During the last couple of years, Australia has had the dual market system for wheat. The result has been much lower wheat prices for almost all Australian farmers. With the dual market system, the AWB is unable to get higher grain prices and is now treated as another grain company.
This confirms that a dual marketing system is not sustainable for crops in which there is frequent world surplus production. The surplus productions are usually the result of U.S. and European subsidies, based on production.
Mr. Ritz was not honest with western farmers about the results of the barley plebiscite. When he redefined the dual-marketing option, claiming 62 percent support for open marketing, he omitted the fact that support for single desk marketing became 86 percent. The dual marketing option gave its voters both open and single desk marketing support with a single vote. How valid is that?
The CWB was unable to explain true results of the barley plebiscite to farmers because of the Conservative’s gag order issued against the CWB prior to the plebiscite. In effect, the gag order has silenced western farmers’ elected representation. …
Fred G. Willis,
Saltcoats, Sask.
HORSE MARKET
Due to public statements made by Mr. Les Burwash, Alberta Agriculture horse industry specialist, that the horse market is poor but is not because of high import numbers, that the influx of 100,000 American horses is not affecting sales of usable horses and that the right kind of horse has a reasonable value, I, along with hundreds of other people in the horse industry are baffled by these statements that are contrary to the reality experienced by most people marketing horses.
We are seeking a specialist, perhaps Mr. Burwash himself, who can provide expert answers to the following questions.
If the market is poor and is not tied to the influx of approximately 100,000 American horses per year coming through all our local auction marts, then what is the reason?
What constitutes a “right kind of horse”? Please provide specifics as to breed, age, gender, colour, preferred conformational points, training, disposition, (etc.)
What constitutes a usable horse? Again, please reply to all specifics as noted above.
Please provide specific dollar amounts for reasonable value. Please do this as a net value after reasonable expenses are applied against the right kind of horse and the usable horse. Also please provide a breakdown for breeders of a reasonable cost of production, including general classifications for capital costs for sire and dam.
After establishing these dollar figures, please advise how to attain these amounts from the current marketplace. Many potential clients quote cheap auction prices. That means we sell at a serious loss or keep feeding the animals for more loss.
What percentage of total market share do these usable, right kind of horses that fetch a reasonable value have and where does this market exist in Alberta or elsewhere?
Darcy Gorgichuk,
Sedalia, Alta.
