markets
Is Brazil a first world country, a third world country, a developing country or something else?
That’s a question I bounced around in my mind while touring the country recently, never coming to a satisfactory answer.
I was there to tour Brazilian farms and get a sense of their potential to affect prairie farmers now that Brazil is becoming an agricultural superpower.
Throughout the areas I travelled I was struck by the odd mix of first world and third world technologies and social conditions.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
In cities like Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, grand and gleaming city centres with fancy restaurants, internet cafes and exclusive clothing boutiques lie just a few miles from squalid shantytowns.
In farming areas big producers are using the biggest and best farm machinery on farms of tens of thousands of acres, while literally across the fenceline squatters living in shacks are harvesting their acre of corn, fruits and vegetables by hand.
Some of Brazil’s massive agricultural expansion is being driven by big farmers who are getting much bigger.
Some is being caused by landless poor people hacking a few acres out of the bush. It seems simultaneously the way the Prairies were being farmed in the 1920s and the way they might be 20 years from now.
Every good hotel – even in the non-touristy interior regions – offers high speed internet access on a hotel computer. But if you wander down the street to a restaurant, don’t expect to be able to use a credit card.
One regional Brazilian airline had much nicer planes and services than Air Canada or WestJet, but another was like flying with Aeroflot on a bad day.
It’s as if there are two economies operating uneasily within the same country – one for the wealthy, literate and educated, and one for the masses.
It’s a troubling reality that Brazilians are keenly aware of and all seem to want to confront.
“My best tractor driver cannot read a map,” noted one large farmer.
This huge divide between rich and poor, skilled and unskilled, preoccupies many Brazilians.
They believe their country has huge potential but they realize all too clearly that it also has enormous problems.
If Brazilians can manage to find a way to wed the huge advances of their prosperous classes with advancement of their huge masses of poor, they will have a bright future.
Then it might be an easier task to define what kind of nation Brazil really is.
0
2
Need think tank
Each year we look forward and we look back and reflect upon the state of the industry. The statistics for farm income speak for themselves. Statistically the industry is in desperate financial shape.
And, farmers who have always looked to the future now openly question if there is a future in Canada for agriculture. This question is as vital to Saskatchewan, and to Canada as it is to the producers in Western Canada.
For years we have heard of the farm crisis, and for some the “cry wolf” scenario is seemingly appropriate. They argue that the crisis must be imagined because despite decreasing farm numbers and an aging farm population, production itself has increased.
To the pundits, the cries of farm crisis were lost due in part to the ingenuity of the agricultural community. Farmers pressed to do more with less did. Although the statistics for 2003 are not yet available, given BSE and lower prices it is not difficult to project that they will likely be even worse than the dismal income figures for 2002.
Given the huge cash and capital costs of farmers, $400,000 combines and $4 wheat, it just does not add up. Although each farm is unique, the aggregate statistics underlie a basic income problem, that will permeate the whole sector.
It is one thing for the industry not to make money. It is entirely another to have the industry losing money and losing equity.
Larry Weber of Weber Commodities Ltd. has suggested that if Paul Martin is serious about Western Canada, then he should reinstate an Otto Lang style think tank. This is a tremendous idea, one that should be advanced….
Our industry has been subjected to much change in the last decade, and it is time to do a report card. The single most fundamental change was the removal of the Crow rate. However, huge changes in transportation and grain handling infrastructure have occurred as well. Farmers, challenged to do more with less, have adapted to change in the last decade at a phenomenal pace.
However, the net result of these changes have not resulted in the promised better bottom line for the farm, nor the value-added industries that were anticipated.
In fact the farm income in real numbers is worse than in the 1930s, and rural depopulation is increasingly evident….
The think tank is necessary only if we determine that agriculture as an industry still bears an important role in the economy of Canada and the balance of trade, and bulk commodities still play an important role in the viability of the Canadian transportation network.
If the above statement is valid then it is critical that a broad-based think tank be prepared to review the state of the industry for the future….
– Vicki Dutton,
Paynton, Sask.
Price tells
Harvey Thomas’ education lesson on the history of the Canadian Wheat Board, in the Western Producer, Dec. 18, leaves out significant facts.
Yes, the government of prime minister Bennett set up the CWB – a voluntary CWB. However, the government of prime minister Mackenzie King in 1943 created the CWB monopoly, the objective being to hold down the cost of foreign aid by shielding the Canadian government from the rising world wheat prices.
The legislation that created the CWB monopoly denied our fathers and grandfathers the opportunity to participate in a rising world wheat market in the same way we were forced to sit on the sidelines last year.
In a year when the so-called virtues of a single desk should have given us above average returns, the CWB’s performance clearly demonstrated those claims are without substance.
Mr. Thomas’ faith in the CWB’s ability to obtain the top price for malt barley may be a little shaken when he learns that the malt plant he referenced at Alix, Alta., imported European barley at a premium when lower priced off-shore markets were given preference by the CWB last year.
Grain farmers’ support for the CWB single desk is demonstrated in their cropping decisions: wheat acres continue to decline. At a recent CWB meeting in Nisku, Alta., a young farmer told the board of directors and farmers present that he fully supported the single desk, but needed to grow more canola and other non-board crops for cash flow and income reasons – a telling statement indeed.
– Albert J. Wagner,
Stony Plain, Alta.
Property tax
A basic property tax on owned property is the fairest and most reliable. Everyone pays whether you own property or not, you pay the tax.
When someone leases or sells to you, the property owner tax figures into the exchange of money. Even if you’re only passing through, one will contribute to the tax. The farmers have a particular problem as they can’t price their own product.
We have a system that resembles slightly what I am referring to. Problem is that the basic tax need and mill rate differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The other fault is our attitude. Everything has to be the biggest and best, whatever that is.
There are thousands of ways in which each jurisdiction could save money. But I’m old-fashioned. I like to work and eat.
As well, I’m willing to help those who make an attempt to help themselves. I also like larger families that should improve the economy, social living and training of our youth.
Now then, if you don’t give a damn about your or any family, then each person should pay the full shot for everything – education, health, court costs, etc.
That should eliminate the family as it exists, very quickly. As well, the wealthy would have families and educate them for income tax writeoff. The cost of travel would be based on tolls guided by weight and distance travelling. Goodbye highway tracking.
You say that we can’t change attitudes that quickly. What has happened to thousands of people who saved money for security, now the casinos, VLTs and lottos have incited them on a greedy quest for rich returns?
There are many more ways to entertain oneself, promote the job market in a manner healthier, less costly and socially acceptable than gambling.
– E. O. Oystreck,
Yorkton, Sask.
Money on table
Twenty-seven years ago I left the boring city life to become a farmer again and almost immediately became involved in grain politics.
I am taking the time and effort to write this letter because I am appalled at the number of naive producers who leave money on the table because they think they have to go through the elevator system to market milling wheat or malting barley to these respective processors.
Once the grain is on the Super B or farm truck, it can easily be delivered directly to the processor, eliminating the elevation and handling charges by the grain company and putting that money in the producer’s pocket.
As well, if you do your homework and determine that you have a superior product, a premium can be negotiated with the processor. Your grain will even be eligible for a final wheat board payment if one is available.
When my family and I moved from Calgary to our farm at Tilley, Alta., I was asked by my city friends if I thought we’d be missing out on the city’s art and culture. I told them that at Tilley we are surrounded by culture, and it’s called agriculture.
– Edwin Bronsch,
Tilley, Alta.
Food issues
I’m writing in response to some articles in the Producer. Dec. 11 p. 65, “Consumers demand GM labels.” Yes, survey after survey in major countries throughout the world, including North America, show that the vast majority of people want labelling of GM food.
Labelling is essential to trace any health problems that may arise. So why are export and trade interests adamant that there should be no labelling?
We are a democracy and have a right to know and choose what we eat. Why does the industry enthusiastically claim their engineered products to be different and unique when seeking a patent and then claim they’re the same as other foods when asked to label them?
P. 71 “Study erases GMO fears” is based only on suggestions. I recommend counsel from several sources before making claims. In 1999 Bt resistance was noticed and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency predicted rapid insect resistance. Three different organizations filed a lawsuit about it….
Dec. 18, p. 8, “GM worries” (Open Forum) is a realistic perspective of science, which I appreciate. Science is too important to be left only to scientists.
Good science is knowledge accumulated from studying nature. This knowledge is based on absolute facts coming from observation and deduction without presuppositions….
Dec. 25, p. 4, “GM wheat application delayed.” May the Canadian Wheat Board and the National Farmers Union keep up the good work.
There are many reasons for rejecting requests for approval. Books have been written about it and hundreds of public interest groups around the world are campaigning against GMOs. …
Instead of wasting billions of dollars for genetic research, we need to look at soil structure and biology, which impacts how plant roots grow and take up nutrients. …
– Gerry Hoeppner,
Morden, Man.
Slaughter plant
With regard to the problem cattle, those over 30 months of age, I believe the government of Alberta should quickly build a slaughter facility to handle these cattle.
Why the province? Because they could work out an agreement with Ottawa to carefully monitor the imports of ground beef.
Private capital is reluctant to put money into a short-term project – needed for possibly 10 or more years.
The province could declare all cattle slaughtered would be tested for BSE and build a lab adjacent to the plant.
I believe this action would restore some hope and confidence and a little optimism to an industry in trouble.
– Jack Horner,
Former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce,
Pollockville, Alta.
Work together
Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the President of the United States of America: This letter took a long time in making. Little by little anger added up over decisions made by politicians, remarks made by men who are supposed to represent people, and show no respect nor manners or tact.
With the newest BSE case in U.S., now pressure is up again for who to blame and where it came from. But how important is that?
How dangerous to human health is BSE if you don’t eat the brain and the spine?
How many humans are attracted to that food line anyway?
With all the problems, disabilities and death alcohol causes, why is it still available and not banned from stores, same with tobacco?
Wouldn’t it be more pressing to find a solution than pointing fingers?
Of course it’s important to find the source of the problem but leave the politics at home. Everybody knows the States aren’t happy that Canada didn’t join in the war against terrorism but I think we did help with the peace keeping, which needs to be recognized too….
I am just a single woman who immigrated from a European country (who) tries to raise cattle and run a B & B in the country I always loved. …Why can’t the two countries that form North America work together on all these problems?…
I made two dreams come true in the last 15 years. I immigrated to Canada and I own a little ranch with cows and sheep, horses and chickens, dog and cat, and I love it despite all the problems coming with it …
I never would have imagined to have to endure the agonies of waiting till some borders open so I and all my fellow ranchers and farmers can make a decent living.
I know the ranch is a lifestyle and one I like, so not too much to complain about on my side but people have to realize as well that we are feeding them. Money alone can’t put food on the table, it has to come from somewhere.
The rate the country loses their young generation is scary but who can blame the kids not wanting to go through heartaches like their parents did? …
– Sylvia Martinetz,
Wildwood, Alta.
Macklin mantra
There is an old saying that the truly tough don’t have to tell you they’re tough – you know they are. I was reminded of this when Canadian Wheat Board director Art Macklin, in his letter of Jan. 8, once again repeated the mantra of how the CWB since 1999 has been farmer run.
If this were true, it would not be necessary for him to repeat it ad nauseam. Unfortunately, despite millions of dollars spent on propaganda in those five years, 85 percent of farmers don’t believe it, according to a CWB sponsored poll released last winter by a fellow director and reported in the WP.
Former CWB minister Goodale also revealed he didn’t believe it either when he was quoted in this paper as saying that he would be the final arbiter as to whether any vote to change the fundamentally coercive nature of the board could be considered valid. He said he would have to weigh various factors such as the question, turnout and percentage for or against before making a decision.
Curious words coming from a member of a party that had no doubt of its right to govern with only 40 percent support from the electorate.
Macklin also claimed that 51 percent of the respondents in the Ipsos-Reid poll agree that the new CWB pricing options provide them with marketing choice.
I would argue that after 61 years of serfdom, those farmers really don’t understand the term “marketing choice.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, market means to sell goods in market or elsewhere. That is precisely what the CWB as it is presently run will never permit.
All farmers can choose is the methods of payment for their property after they are forced to turn it over to the lords of the board.
I referred to Macklin’s repetition of “farmers have democratic control of the CWB” as a mantra. A mantra is a word or phrase uttered repeatedly by those who meditate to attain a state of consciousness where the mind is emptied of all thoughts.
Macklin can repeat his as long as he likes but it will not stop farmers from thinking and questioning. And that, ultimately, will bring about the downfall of the board.
– Russell Larson,
Outlook, Sask.
Keep control
Canadian cattle farmers are now backed into a corner by the packing plants because there are only a few who control all the slaughter in Canada.
They do not have to compete, they work together so the producer is powerless (with) no control over what we receive. … Now they have us under their thumb and they take full advantage.
Does this sound familiar to what is happening in the grain trade?
A hundred years ago the grain trade was controlled by a few companies. They treated grain producers badly so farmers started the three wheat pools and UGG, also the Canadian Wheat Board.
Now the co-op grain companies are all gone, controlled by the multinationals. So the pressure is on to get rid of the CWB by those who say ‘I want choice, I want to sell my own grain’.
We see how much choice and freedom we have in the cattle business now that it is controlled by a few packers and the supermarkets.
The grain business is coming full circle again and we are coming under the control of the multinationals again, and we will see how much choice they let us have. Not very much.
The CWB is the only place we still have some influence. Don’t throw away this last bit of choice and control we still have.
– T. E. Finnson,
Arborg, Man.
