Dairy value
Supply management has never pretended to be part of the “cheap food” policy movement (Opinion, March 30.) It’s about allowing farmers to make a decent living without relying on government subsidies.
Over the years however, it has become clear that supply management has not artificially increased prices to consumers. Market ups and downs in the U.S. dairy industry, for example, have led to higher consumer prices because of uncertainty in the marketplace. Retail and processor concentration is also contributing to fluctuating prices.
Time and time again, we’ve seen that when the farm price for U.S. milk goes up, the retail price increases too. But when the farm price went down, the retail price did not follow, in time or in magnitude.
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
Meanwhile, Canadian dairy farmers can count on prices for their milk remaining fairly stable for one year at a time. Stability and predictability also allow processors to run their plants efficiently and provide a variety of dairy products, including fresh products to consumers.
It is easy for one person to compare prices of a few products in two stores and claim one is higher than the other. But to get a true picture of the reality, Dairy Farmers of Canada has asked a firm to survey the prices in 83 stores for 25 common dairy products that are sold all over North America.
The “cheap food policy,” as Dennis Rice calls it, in a number of sectors in Canada or in the United States has also led to farmers needing to rely on government subsidies or increasing production to make ends meet.
While increased production can lead to opportunities to export, it also creates surpluses, which further drive prices down. It’s a vicious circle…. All industries, from automobiles to shoe making, have and keep attempting to balance supply to demand one way or another. By balancing supply to meet demand for Canadians in every part of the country, supply management has allowed farmers to earn a predictable income from the marketplace without relying on government subsidies.
– Emile Marquette,
President,
Dairy Farmers of Saskatchewan,
Kelvington, Sask.
Seeking control
I see by the paper both Mr. Schmidt of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and Mr. Hayward of Agricore (United) are ready to operate in a dual market and are frustrated by any review by the Canadian Grain Commission. (WP, March 23.)
If they get rid of both these farmer agencies that took so long to be put into place, they will have complete control and farmers will be left with “take it or leave it,” something like how it existed before we had the CGC and the Canadian Wheat Board.
They demolished the second generation of high throughput elevators that farmers had paid for and embarked on a massive and costly concrete elevator program that has left them with massive losses.
If they have control of the CWB and the CGC, it would greatly improve their bottom lines. Where would this leave all the producer cars and short lines?
– Avery Sahl,
Mossbank, Sask.
Save CWB
To all the anti-Canadian Wheat Board critics, both farmers and bureaucrats.
I did not want to get involved in this kind of literate dialogue, but after reading Denis Sauvageau’s article in the Western Producer (Open Forum, March 30), I was moved to do just that, before it is too late.
What are all you anti-CWB critics writing about when you say “we want more choice, options, etc.,” call it what you may. If you don’t like the CWB or what they are doing, don’t seed spring wheat, durum or barley.
Seed canola, peas, lentils, etc., and have fun guessing when to sell on the open market, but don’t fill the newspapers, complaining and whining when your neighbour down the road gets a better price than you did.
In the pool pricing CWB system, we are all equal and get the same pricing providing it grades the same and has the same protein, except of course for variation in freight, depending on where we are situated.
If you want full payment the day you deliver, that option is in place, but don’t come bellowing and want to share in the pool system later. The CWB has a multitude of program choices for anyone to choose at their discretion.
The director election results should tell you all you need to know as to what the majority of grain farmers want. Only three dual marketers have won elections so far. Out of these three, two changed to single desk when they had their eyes opened, and got to see the results of the board’s dealings. The third one? Well, you must always know a man can be as stubborn as a mule….
By now I’m sure you wonder if I’m satisfied with grain movement. The answer is no, but I’m positive with an open market, we would have fallen prey to one of the giant grain companies, at their price, and they would reap the benefits later.
The saying goes, grain in your bin is money in the bank. So let’s just wait and hope for demand and I’m sure the CWB will do its job diligently….
– Paul Waldner,
Warner, Alta.
Farmers decide
I was delighted to read the informative and balanced article “Ontario let farmers decide. Will Ottawa?” by Adrian Ewins in the March 16 edition. It was journalism at its best.
I strongly support the concept of letting farmers decide market choices for CWB wheat and barley. However, the first action for Harper’s government is to fix the rigged elections for CWB directors.
We keep hearing that the majority of farmers support the CWB single desk monopoly. Past elections were so flawed and biased that we simply do not know. …
Two changes to election rules must be implemented to have a fair process. First, only bona fide farmers should have the right to vote. Currently, over 35 percent of names on voter lists are landlords or hobby farmers that have no interest in marketing their grains. No wonder they like the CWB.
The review panel for CWB election rules recommended excluding such persons from voter lists. It is imperative that the government quickly implements this sensible recommendation.
Second, farmers should have one vote per 100 tonnes delivered to CWB in the past five years. This system will ensure that votes truly reflect the interest of each farmer in the CWB business….
Judging by current prices, grain companies are losing farmer support quite fast. It will be wise to let them know what “choices” mean when we market our grains.
I am well aware of the tired argument of CWB chair Ken Ritter that marketing choice will kill the market premium that the CWB get for farmers. He is dead wrong simply because there is no evidence whatsoever that CWB can extract a premium from the market.
In fact, the highly biased pool return outlook of the CWB sends a message to all grain buyers that producers are apparently willing to sell their grains at fire-sale prices. Let the PRO be set by a credible, independent party and you will see a difference.
– Franois Messier,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Key promise
Is there some hope for farmers in our new Conservative minority government?
On Dec. 21, 2005, the Conservatives released their agriculture platform: “Stand Up For Canada Ð Harper To Replace CAIS and Boost Ethanol and Biodiesel.”
Midway on page two of the report is a key promise: “A Conservative government will replace CAIS with a new income stabilization program that is simpler and more responsive. We will ensure that it properly addresses the cost of production, market revenue and inventory evaluation. Secondly, a Conservative government will be ready to take a leadership role when disaster strikes, and fund disaster relief separately from income stabilization.”
It is my understanding that the U.S. and EU subsidy programs have a cost of production basis, and have no intention of dropping their subsidies to a point where their farmers lose money producing food for the country.
Surely those who now hold the balance of power would support any move to address the cost of production which farmers so badly need.
– Lester O. Jorgenson,
Abbey, Sask.
Question motives
Regarding numerous articles that have been printed in the Western Producer over the winter months, I applaud the fact that you do present both sides of many stories.
However, I am amazed at the conclusions that some of the experts and chairs of various farm organizations like Grain Vision, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and U.S. economists come to regarding the benefits of dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board (and about) GM crops.
This week (WP, March 23) Paul Orsak, chair of Grain Vision, said “there would be significant efficiencies gained from taking the bureaucracy out of the Canadian grain transportation system. Efficiency gains result in more money in the pockets of farmers.”
What happened when they took the Crow Rate away? It did not result in more money in farmers’ pockets. In the article by Adrian Ewins on railway profits, it says “CPR reported record net income of $543 million in 2005, a 32 percent increase from the previous year.” Meanwhile, what has happened to farmers’ income? It has turned to a net loss.
Then Mr. Orsak goes on to say that Ontario wheat producers were granted marketing choice in 2003 and it is working well for producers. Turn a few pages and you see “Ontario protest slows traffic.” It appears Ontario farmers are worse off than we are.
It also amazed me that the University of California economist says GM technology offers wheat growers the best chance to turn around their struggling industry.
I question his assumptions based on what happened to the canola industry in Canada since GM canola was allowed.
First there are countries that refuse to buy any canola from Canada. Then the price farmers receive for the canola is lower now than it has been for many years. How did GM canola really benefit farmers? It really benefited Monsanto, as you can tell by some of the financial results that Monsanto has achieved these past years.
Now Monsanto wants us to grow GM wheat so we can pay technology use agreements to them for that as well. What will happen to our current overseas wheat markets? There are those countries who will cease to buy any wheat from us because there is no guarantee that it can be kept separate from non-GM wheat.
When will we start learning from our mistakes? We didn’t need GM canola and we don’t need GM wheat.
What I haven’t heard mention anywhere is what will happen to all those markets for wheat that the farmers living close to the U.S. border seem to think they will access if there is no CWB. I think that the farmers in the U.S. will be just as likely to oppose the Canadian wheat and barley going into the U.S. as they have done when it was under CWB control, only then who will fight on behalf of farmers when U.S. producers cry foul and the U.S. government imposes duties on Canadian grain? … We have lots to lose if we lose the CWB and our GM-free wheat status.
– Dagmar Mehlsen,
Fairview, Alta.
Glaring omission
After reading Paul Orsak’s article “Market choice will reinvigorate” in the March 23 issue of the Western Producer, I felt there was one glaring omission in his analysis of the benefits to making the CWB optional and having “marketing choice.”
The point he forgot to mention is increased returns to producers. When they got rid of the Crow Rate, we were told that increased efficiencies in the transportation network would offset the higher freight rate we would have to pay. When they decided we had to rationalize the grain handling system by closing small elevators and building a network of high throughput elevators we were told we would see lower handling charges due to increased efficiency in the handling system.
None of these have happened yet. The only thing that I have seen is the increased bottom line for CN, CP and all the major grain companies. The profits due to increased efficiency are not being passed on to producers.
Mr. Orsak contends that marketing choice will bring opportunities for pasta plants, malt plants, etc. He does not mention increased returns to producers.
There is a good reason for this. Because like CN, CP and the grain companies, the new pasta and malt plants have an obligation to their shareholders and that obligation is to increase profits. That doesn’t mean increased profits for producers.
Mr. (Wayne) Easter in his report on agriculture recommends increasing market power for producers. I believe this is the only way to increase returns to producers. We need the power to withhold our production if necessary and demand that we be paid a decent return for our products.
We need to do something, and soon.
– Glen Nunweiler,
Kindersley, Sask.
Scrap CAIS
The Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program needs to be scrapped because it doesn’t treat all farmers the same, and it should. It works for a few but should work for all that had a farm losses last year!
Two farmers could have identical operations, identical incomes, identical expenses, and one can trigger thousands while the other triggers nil from CAIS. That’s because their margins are different based on which yearly bills were paid and which ones weren’t. Farm support is supposed to be based on 70 percent of a farmer’s losses, not 70 percent coverage of a small number…. Let’s get things changed to the GATT rules of 70 percent of an individual farmer’s losses.
Accrual income tax does just that – it would show losses from all of Canada’s agricultural sectors … No new or old farm programs are needed like the old CAIS/crop insurance or making new programs like ad-hoc or disaster.
Why take the time to design any programs or change programs when accrual income taxing is already in place…?
Government support can be and should be based on a yearly loss. Averaging can be done after three or five years of information is collected to please the (trade) rules. …
Tweaking CAIS to be more simple, responsive and equitable will never work as long as it’s based on margins. We have already proven that over the last nine years by tweaking (other programs.)
I and others want accrual income taxing as the only farm support program needed. This program is already available at Revenue Canada and it will work for everyone and every agricultural sector within Canada. All old farm programs like CAIS and crop insurance can be cancelled with their administration dollars flowing to farmers, while any new programs like ad-hoc or a disaster program wouldn’t be needed because 100 percent of all farm losses would be in Revenue Canada/Statistics Canada to have government support and target future farm aid on….
– Lloyd Pletz,
Lebret, Sask.
No more wheat
Re: Western Producer, March 23 articles: “EU asked to intervene in royalty dispute” and “World needs GM wheat: economist.”
These two articles started me thinking, why do we need more wheat? In our province we are drowning in grain, such as wheat, barley, canola. Oh yes, we can give it away, but we can’t sell it for the cost of production.
To try and force the rest of the world that imports our grain, GM is not the way to go.
So I read the articles on EU asked to intervene again. What I got from that article is Argentina’s farms don’t want to pay Monsanto $15 an acre royalty. Three cheers for the Argentina farmers.
Now if our own farmers would stop and take a look at what’s going on here, they might realize that Monsanto will be collecting $15 an acre for canola, wheat and barley and any other grains that they can claim rights to.
Fellows, if this continues, we will be going to Monsanto, cap in hand, because they will own all of the seed in Canada, U.S., Argentina or anyplace else.
I think we had better talk to our agriculture minister to see if we can’t change a few things. To start with, to be able to save back our own seed without paying Monsanto for it.
Do we really need more wheat? A little less wheat and a little more money sound better to me.
– Roscoe Grant,
Wetaskiwin, Alta.
Bison registry
In the March 23 article, “Alta. bison producer considers herd registration,” it was stated that fellow bison producer Fiona Williams supports the (bison) registry in principle but said she foresees problems for producers who want to maintain their hands-off method of raising bison.
I would like to inform bison ranchers that bison registry does not have to involve any great “hands-on” procedures. It involves far less processing than past TB/brucellosis testing that bison producers had to deal with, as well as much less than what is now required to send bison across the border into the U.S. direct to slaughter or to feedlots.
My husband and I feel the effort the Canadian Bison Association committee is making to reopen the bison registry, which has been closed since 2002, is of great importance. Partly due to conflict between conservationists and bison ranchers over the species at risk issue, and to enhance herd traceability and improve bison management, the process has begun.
Prior to the closure, my husband and I had registered close to 100 Plains bison on the Buffalo Horn Ranch west of Olds, Alta. As the largest Canadian herd of registered Plains bison in Canada at the time and possibly still, we did this to maintain purity in the breed. We hope to continue once the registry is reopened.
Our philosophy of raising bison is also quite hands-off and this includes registration. Our management entails checking our herd daily once calving begins in April/May and recording which cow calved and its sex, which can be done with binoculars from a distance. Note that this also helps us in age verification, which is an important issue now in exporting and grading bison.
No calves are handled or tagged until weaning in October/November, at which time we deworm the mothers, tag the calves and put them back with their moms for a couple of weeks to settle.
During this time we match the tag numbers of the calves with their moms to verify that the matches were correct. The calves are later weaned and then released into their winter pasture. Later, some would be selected and DNA tested to confirm parentage and registered with the Canadian Livestock Records Corp.
Registration of bison is “hand-off” until they are at least one to two years old, is not terribly difficult, helps maintain purity between Plains and Wood bison and is important in keeping Plains bison off the species at risk list.
Peter and I encourage more bison producers to do the same and register their bison.
– Judy Haase,
Olds, Alta.
No nukes
I have become alarmed at the publicity used by uranium companies and pro-nuclear groups in an attempt to continue uranium mining and to plan for new developments.
Nuclear is touted as clean and economically viable. Those who favour these developments are seeing only one side of the nuclear picture. …
Uranium mining began because of the demand for weapons of mass destruction, and continues because of economic benefits to some.
We must continue to monitor present mining practices.
Our survival depends on having no nukes.
– Mary Pyne,
Saskatoon, Sask.
