Malt delays
To the Editor:
After reading the letter to the editor by Craig Shaw of Lacombe, Alta., I couldn’t help but write in as well. I agree with everything he said and would like to add a few more points hoping to make fellow malt barley producers aware of the lop-sided system we must operate in. I am sure most already know!
My own malt barley was accepted in fall and was stored on the farm for nine months. It was initially rejected because the percentage of plump was too low. The elevator manager suggested cleaning a sample and resubmitting; it was accepted. It was stored on my farm since in dry condition.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
After I delivered it to the elevator and had it cleaned a sample was sent away to make sure it met all the minimum standards. It didn’t, the germination was apparently 90 percent, obviously below the standard. What troubles me is no one could provide me with a germination test result on the previous samples I submitted. No one asked for a recheck sample all winter or spring either. How do I know this sample had adequate germination in the first place?
I realize I have some responsibility to submit samples but must we assume all of the responsibility and risk?
Remember, no one could provide me with germination results before the last test, and now they said the germination is too low.
If the barley is rejected I lose all my storage payments, nine months worth, over $1,000 worth. I also missed the red-hot Alberta feed market because I was holding it for malt, and the CWB feed barley pool is pathetic.
The storage payments we are receiving are apparently coming from the malt barley pool account, money that is put in the pool account from the sale of malt barley, money that is ours to begin with! I suppose some could argue that the maltsters are paying it, but if they are combining storage premiums with barley prices what would that mean to the price of a bushel of barley if the storage premiums weren’t paid into the pool account?
Another inequity resulting from storage payments: two farmers’ barley is accepted for malt at the same time, the first has his called for in one month, the other in 10 months.
The first farmer is in effect paying the storage charges for the second. Because the money is coming out of the pool account, the first farmer will receive less of the pool because of the second farmer’s larger storage payment. I think the storage payments should be paid direct from the Selecting Party (over and above the price of the barley). Then they would have an interest in what happens to the integrity of the barley.
I had a discussion with a CWB employee about the value-added aspect of the malt industry and compared the malt price to the Alberta feed barley price. He told me the beef industry is adding value to the feed barley price as well. My thoughts are it takes one bushel of malt barley to make 333 bottles of beer and many bushels to finish a steer. Where do you see more value? And the two prices really aren’t that far apart. Unfortunately I live about 50 to 55 cents per bushel away from that market (trucking costs).
We as producers are assuming way too much of the responsibility and risk for the value of our contribution to those 333 bottles of beer. If they have their way, we will soon be responsible for it until it hits the urinal.
– Tim Wittman,
Vibank, Sask.
Drilling fees
To the Editor:
Recently the Western Producer printed an article entitled, “Some Alberta ranchers to lose drilling cash.” I am not happy with this article. It suggests in the title and first sentence that this is a foregone conclusion, which it is not.
This happens to be only one suggestion in a report by Mr. Thurber. The author, however, seems biased and has already sided with Mr. Thurber’s committee. The article also suggests that this oil and gas drilling revenue is a “windfall profit.” This is untrue. I am being paid for my time spent negotiating, my effort patrolling and the inconvenience I experience. It would sure be nice if the Western Producer could stand up for the rancher and not for those who would undermine his way of life.
– J. Thomas Pahl,
Medicine Hat, Alta.
Strange import
To the Editor:
The destruction of the Canadian farmer continues unabated: Shipping feed wheat from the Ukraine to Quebec.
Don’t you think that Western grain is a lot closer? And our feed oats are almost worthless! Or even U.S. corn is a lot closer and in great supply. Or Sweden’s oats replacing Canadian oats on the U.S. market?
Ripping out our railways is a hare-brained idea supported by a hare-brained government! The aim of globalization is to enslave the world’s food producers!
Feed grains are interchangeable! The food producers are as good as enslaved now thanks to the cost-price-squeeze and globalization. Globalization is not conducive to National Unity! Ottawa says, “Sorry, we can’t help.” Which means Ottawa is useless to the Canadian people, if we are to be dominated by international corporate power!…
– Paul Kuric,
Vega, Alta.
Dollar woes
To the Editor:
As our Canadian loonie dove to record lows, numerous articles and commentaries tried to explain why this was happening. Explanations primarily laid the blame on low commodity prices and poor productivity performance compared to the U.S.A.
Everybody agrees, however, that as Canadians we have become poorer and where we were once considered rich, we are now distinctly middle-class.
How do we regain the currency value that, in 1975, was $1.05 U.S.? The answer is National Unity.
1975 was the year prior to Rene Levesque winning in Quebec and bringing with the P.Q. the possibility of separation and the resulting uncertainty for the country as a whole.
Although the dollar was weaker in the ’80s, it made a comeback in 1991 to 89 cents U.S. when the Conservatives, to their credit, tried to bring Quebec back into the constitution.
As we all know, both Meech Lake and Charlottetown went down to failure.
This opened the door for Bouchard, coming in late in the 1995 referendum campaign, to almost win it for the separatist vote. It would be a mistake to think he would fail again.
As Canadians, including the people of Quebec, we can achieve unity and a strong country. To reach this objective, it requires us all to become separatists and “separate” from Ottawa.
The present political structure is not working.
We must decentralize in the manner that has worked so well in Switzerland, which, by the way, has one of the strongest currencies in the world.
– Ace Cetinski,
Sherwood Park, Alta.
