Letters to the editor

CWB outdated

Could someone please explain to me the advantage of a single desk marketing system for our grain? Maybe the Canadian Wheat Board had a purpose years ago before the advent of the internet, but I believe it is grossly unfair to force people to market their grain through the CWB only.

I am aware of the buy-back program, non-board feed grains etc., but for the most part there is no other option other than the CWB. Why are farmers allowed to sell their grain to whom they please in Ontario?

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?

If the CWB is doing as good a job of selling our grain as they say they are, then they shouldn’t be afraid of a little competition. Who knows, maybe they are doing a great job, but we will never really know if we don’t give dual marketing a try.

I believe the single desk marketing system penalizes many people out there who could do a better job of marketing their own grain. It is after all their grain and they have a vested interest in it and nobody should be able to force them into marketing it in a way they do not like.

I think the CWB has become outdated and overrated.

Ñ Art Hazelhoff,

Lacombe, Alta.

Malt price

Re Wheat lesson by E. B. Fischbuch (Open Forum, Dec. 9.)

How about a malt barley lesson, Mr. Fischbuch? Forty years ago I shipped a car load of malt barley which that year had fallen from 83.5 to 63.5 cents and a bottle of beer went up 20 cents. And I did not get a cent of final payment.

Yet the CWB sold my barley for just under $5 a bushel to Canada Malt. I know because a year later I got a letter from Canada Malt stating that is what they paid to the CWB for my malt barley.

Why did Canada Malt tell me that? Because I would not sell them my barley a year later because I sold it to the feedlot for more money because of poor price the year before. And was not offered more a year later by the CWB.

If Mr. Fischbuch is such an expert on wheat and the CWB maybe he can explain just what happened with the payment on my malt barley and why CWB gave me the change and kept the green bucks.

I know what happened but I want to know if you do.

Ñ John Pokorney,

Tilley, Alta.

Trade notes

A great deal of discussion is taking place in various articles in a number of publications about World Trade Organization talks and agreements. One particular stumbling block concerning Canada’s position is protection of the supply-managed sector of agriculture.

A huge problem is created by the cost of purchasing quotas. The average sized dairy producer must pay in the area of $1 million for quota to produce and sell milk.

How much do you suppose this adds to his cost of production? Can you guess what might be the cost of producing wheat, barley or other grains if the average farmer had to buy a million-dollar quota to sell his grain?

Of course, one has to bear in mind that the majority of the supply-managed sector is located in Ontario and Quebec.

Ever since the late 1960s, politicians have been telling farmers they must become more efficient. We must learn to produce more for less. Well, we have become more efficient. The average farmer today produces many times what a farmer produced 50 years ago….

Canadian producers will never be able to compete with producers in many other countries as long as we have our present level of taxation. The last time I had to buy a new pickup, I had to donate almost $6,000 to governments. There are many other examples of high taxes, such as fuel, property and income tax. When you include all taxes, governments consume over 50 percent of everyone’s income.

We will never have a level playing field with Europe and the U.S. They seem to always find a way around or just plain ignore WTO regulations. The only way we can become more competitive is by reducing our cost of production, which means a huge reduction in taxes at all levels.

Ñ Roger Brandl,

Fort St. John, B.C.

Sustained dogma

Re: Minister considers more reforms to wheat board (WP, Dec. 9.) Despite claims that the World Trade Organization is the reason for changes to the act, the CWB has a far worse problem relating to their legislation right here in Canada.

Their trouble is that they are illegally forcing monopoly control over prairie farmers using 1947 legislation that access to information documents clearly show was intended as a national export-import tax for government coffers.

The export tax, based on the difference between the government’s set price in Canada and the world price, makes private exporting unprofitable during times of a government set price, but has never been monopoly legislation.

The CWB has falsely claimed that the export taxing section 46(d) of the act “fully describes and sets out the purpose of the buy-back.” When challenged on this issue, the CWB’s best strategy has been silence, but finally in an October 2004 letter, the CWB concedes that the buy-back “is not a fee.”

This contradicts their previous statements, and confirms that section 46(d) has nothing to do with the buy-backs, which is highly significant because it means that the CWB monopoly control over prairie farmers is not mandated by Parliament but only by bureaucratic policy in Winnipeg.

Farmers have been lied to and even convicted, fined and jailed without statutory authorization.

The bureaucrats’ predicament is that if they change the act to give the CWB control over farmers, they immediately expose the fraud they have been perpetuating, but if they do nothing, it is only a matter of time before their lack of statutory authority becomes common knowledge.

The truth always prevails. Even the all-powerful authorities during the terrifying years of the inquisition could not sustain their dogma that the sun revolved around the earth.

Ñ John Husband,

Wawota, Sask.

It’s our water

Re: Open Forum Dec. 2, Selling water, by Duane Halliday: I had to read his letter twice to really believe a true Canadian would think about selling our water to United States. Why didn’t he just say give it to them.

Mr. Halliday should have a good look at what is called free trade between Canada and U.S. If it doesn’t suit the U.S., they impose tariffs to suit themselves. …

If pork or barley goes south, there is almost sure to be a tariff imposed. What about the BSE crisis? Our farmers are paying the price, if not going broke. Beef prices are very low to the producer, but to the consumer, well you know what you pay for your beef. Why? Because it goes through the packing plants of U.S. corporations. Apparently there is no law against making huge profits.

Without a doubt, I feel much of the blame should fall on our governments, both provincial and federal. Why don’t they see that Canada has their own packing plants? They cater to big corporations, but not necessarily Canadian. Surely some of the profits can stay in Canada for Canadians….

Going back to selling water, they have likely been eyeing our water for a long time or they would have been conserving instead of squandering their own.

There is nothing the matter with give and take, as long as it is fair for both sides. A short while back, the U.S. was short of flu vaccine. Canada stepped forward, even with the risk of a shortage in some areas in Canada. …

Our neighbours south of the border are no better than we are. Let’s stand up for our rights. Our governments should take a good look at some of our free trade deals. Also more control of big American corporations taking over Canada.

Ñ Doug Robert Meyers,

Berwyn, Alta.

Energy costs

Everyone knows we all need food and fuel every day of our lives. The old Webster dictionary defined energy as primary and secondary energy. Primary energy is the food all living things need to stay alive. Secondary energy Ñ oil, wood, natural gas, straw, coal Ñ is the energy we use to have a more comfortable life.

Farming or modern production agriculture that produces our food can and does produce tremendous amounts of vital food to feed our people and the world. In the process we consume prodigious amounts of secondary energy to plant, harvest, store, transport, process, distribute, prepare, dispose of the garbage, of food for our people.

Over 20 percent of our daily national effort is spent just to feed our people.

In very unstable political and economic energy markets and continued expanding world demand for available fuel supplies, most people realize energy costs will continue to go up.

Energy costs money. The big question is who will pay for the rising energy costs to produce our food? Every farmer knows of the very real and every day direct energy costs in their farming operations for fuel, fertilizer, machinery, transportation, repairs. Just filling their tractor with fuel for one day’s work could cost $200 or more….

The railroads have already raised freight rates to recover higher fuel costs and will do so again. These higher energy costs are a critical factor to us land-locked food producers who are distant to the population centres where most of our food is needed and consumed. We do not have easy access to lower cost barge service and open water seaports. This problem is even more critical for our fellow Canadian farmers.

Higher energy costs affect everyone. Food producers already know we will pay much higher direct energy costs in our farm operations. We must realize we will also pay higher indirect energy costs incurred by the entire food chain in lower commodity prices at the farm.

This is no way to run a business. Unless we farmers build our own marketing structure that will allow us to recover our cost of producing food for our people from the marketplace, we independent food producers cannot hope to survive.

Ñ Kelly Shockman,

LaMoure, North Dakota

Not in kitchen

You printed a story in the Jan. 6 paper about a presentation I made at the APAS (Agricultural Producers of Saskatchewan) conference.

I did mention making biodiesel in the kitchen while watching a Hockey Night in Canada doubleheader. This part of the presentation was simply to show that biodiesel is easy to make. There’s nothing secretive or highly technical about it.

I would not, however, recommend making any biodiesel in anyone’s kitchen. First, it could be very dangerous. You may be dealing with explosive or toxic material, and secondly the quality could be very low.

We are looking at making a top quality product in this province, so it would be better if anyone interested in using biodiesel purchased it from one of the several manufacturers in the province.

Ñ Andre Hucq,

University of Saskatchewan,

Saskatoon, Sask.

Cost dilemma

The other day I happened to read a letter to the editor in the Producer (Jan. 6) about the real concerns of a veterinarian in southeast Saskatchewan.

What I recall, in general, her largest concerns were the use of non-registered (in Canada) products on cattle, for parasite control, and the lack of local business support created by purchasing these medications stateside.

I’d have to say I’m one of the people that contributed to her dilemma. I sympathize with her problems and praise every country vet for the incredible job they have to do, but in the end survival boils down to dollars and cents.

For example, locally five litres of Ivomec pour-on costs $535. A comparable five litre product with the same active ingredient, less than two hours drive from home cost me $134 exchange included.

That’s a difference of more than $400 per jug. An afternoon’s drive saved our operation $1,600 alone that could easily be spent on a myriad of things elsewhere.

As painful as it is to have to buy it from someone who does nothing but contribute to your plight, maybe it’s time we send a message to the huge chemical and pharmaceutical companies and tell them money still does talk.

Could they realistically be doing something more to help a stockperson? Costs are costs but really how much profit is enough?

Next time you are at the animal clinic, ask your local vet how much of a profit margin they have on pour-on products. I’m sure they would be only too happy to tell you, as they likely won’t be smiling, or laughing all the way to the bank.

Ñ Darrell Morvik,

Eastend, Sask.

Wise spending

In response to Melanie Roth’s article in the Jan. 6 issue, I take some offence to what she has to say. I travelled to the United States to purchase Ivermectin, not because I want to hurt our local businesses but because of the huge price difference for the same product.

In the U.S. the pour-on she refers to is $107 cheaper after the exchange. The generic brand is three times cheaper even after the trip expenses. While ordering my product, I inquired about the price of other livestock drugs. They are also about one-third the price here in Canada….

I believe the next step in farmers making money will not necessarily be through the latest technology but in spending the money we make more wisely. I hope all businesses that deal with farmers realize we now have newspapers, TV, radio, and yes, we have internet.