Deer lesson
To the Editor:
The deer feces scandal is a perfect example of how dual marketing will undermine and eventually destroy the Canadian Wheat Board (Western Producer, Jan. 15).
In case someone has missed it, we do have a form of dual marketing for feed barley on the prairies in operation at the present time. Prairie farmers have a choice of selling their feed barley through the CWB for export or through the open market for domestic consumption.
Now here is the problem: The CWB does not have its own grain-gathering system. It is totally dependent on grain companies such as Cargill, Pioneer, ConAgra, UGG and the Prairie Pools to buy, handle and store their grain for them.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
These grain companies have control over all feed barley in their primary elevator system.
It is in their power to decide which feed barley will be designated as being the property of the CWB and which will be sold to their private customers for domestic consumption.
In a dual marketing system, every one of these grain companies is in very direct competition with the CWB. Their first concern and obligation would be to satisfy their shareholders and their customers. It is very naive and unrealistic to expect them to do otherwise.
After all, the CWB is their chief competitor. In actuality, it is a conflict-of-interest situation, not very difficult to understand if one makes a sincere effort.
To further illustrate this point, a neighbor of mine recently delivered his 49 lbs. per bushel feed barley to his local elevator with instructions to assign it to the CWB. Later on he discovered that his barley was sold to the open market for domestic consumption and someone else’s barley weighing 47 lbs. to the bushel was substituted for his and designated as CWB barley.
Now back to the deer feces scandal. What obviously happened is that some elevator company came to the natural conclusion that it was more in their interest to designate the deer feces contaminated barley to the CWB rather than to sell it to their own open-market customers. Dual marketing will continue to undermine and sabotage the CWB as long as the CWB must rely on its competitors to handle its grain. Anyone who faces this situation honestly and puts aside all personal biases will have no problem understanding and accepting the fact that there are only two actual choices, the Canadian Wheat Board or the Open Market.
– George E. Hickie,
Waldron, Sask.
A farmer’s worth
To the Editor:
Verna Thomson’s rant about phone surveys (Jan. 22) was timely. In the last two or three weeks I’ve received as many “requests.”
Usually when I receive the telephone type, my first question to the surveyor, after they get over their introduction, is: How much are you paying me for my time to answer your questions? And the response is, “Oh, we are not allowed to pay you,” or some such negative, surprised answer.
The latest “survey” came by snail mail (not e-mail, but the old fashioned kind) and really caught my eye. Why? Well, it contained a cheque! Immediately payable to yours truly!
The short form-letter explained that I was being paid for filling out the enclosed survey. Had my rather rude responses to telephone surveys finally paid off?
Overcome with the possibility Agribusiness had finally realized that a benefit to it, should be shared with those who made industry’s success possible, I thought, by golly, $20 for filling out a survey, that’s not bad!
My enthusiasm had caused partial blindness. Closer examination showed that I had dreamed up an extra zero and misplaced a period. $2! (That’s two dollars, just in case you are also visually impaired.) Well! this got me interested in the scope of aforementioned survey.
Some of the questions were difficult. The first one, for instance, amounted to this: Are you going to increase, maintain or decrease acres planted this year? Such a question takes some time. There are so many variables, but in all fairness I guess after a bit of silent deliberation I could make a best guess.
But I don’t really know, so I guess that would cause some devaluation of the survey.
I will not deal with each question. Suffice it to say that consideration of the first question and its plethora of variables; getting out my records from last year; pondering whether to indicate my age or not; filling out the form and preparing the return envelope, would require, what? 15 -20 minutes? Or, I would be getting the equivalent of $8 or $6 per hour. ( Note: This does not take into account the time and gas it would take to deliver the survey to the nearest Post Office, six miles away; might be going to coffee row to carry on about this anyway.)
The net worth of my small farm and holdings is well over a (mumble mumble) dollars.
I am a pretty good mechanic, welder, plumber, electrician, farmer and business manager. More than just computer literate, I know how to fly an airplane and have at least an average command of the language.
In addition to this I have years of experience as a radio and TV broadcaster and I make damn good beer from malt barley I get from Prairie Malt at Biggar.
I want at least $9 an hour!
So I sent the cheque back to the AgriBusiness company which thinks a completed survey “will go a long way toward helping (suchandsuch company) develop our products to meet your specific needs.”
– Edwin Wallace,
Stewart Valley, Sask.
Who pays?
To the Editor:
Who is responsible for demurrage charges on western grain? According to The Western Producer, the farmers have to pay them. This can’t be right! Sometime ago, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that once the farmer takes settlement for his grain at the elevator, it is no longer his grain, but belongs to the crown. In this case, the Canadian Government! Why should farmers pay demurrage on grain that is not theirs?
Another concern is train derailments. You had a picture in The Western Producer of a derailment with a number of grain cars over a steep embankment.
Can anything be salvaged from the cars and grain? Again, who pays for the loss? The farmers? It is time that the farmers got some justice! …(
– Paul Kuric,
Vega, Alta.
9 to 5 days
To the Editor:
Maybe the grain company and railroad workers and the railroad company itself better take another look at what they’re doing to our farming communities, as the farmers are using semis to get their grain delivered. The grain company employees want a nine to five job and no weekends. At harvest time, they could be working an evening or a night shift when the farmers are harvesting. Why should the farmer have to handle the grain twice, as that gets costly for the farmer?
But of course when it’s harvest time, the elevator is full and no rail cars in sight to keep the elevators empty to accommodate the grain from the field.
As far as I’m concerned, the elevator agents will soon be looking for work if their companies don’t co-operate and try to accommodate farmers at harvest.
There isn’t an elevator open down the line to even take your grain to have it tested. We can drive to Tuxford which is 42-45 km away.
Our freight rate is higher north of Tuxford, so do the companies think that the farmers will haul to the small communities that still have elevators if the semi is loaded and can head east to Tuxford or Moose Jaw?
If the farmers start loading their own grain cars and the agent isn’t needed, we’ll need no grain companies, so goodbye to the grain companies away from your larger trade centres.
If contaminated grain, either with bugs or deer feces, got all the way to Japan, especially if the grain is all to be cleaned, the farmers have to take some responsibility for their grain too and not try underhandedly to get rid of contaminated grain.
This hurts other farmers either exporting or through the Wheat Board, as the Wheat Board is going to get tough on the farming sector.
– Elaine Cozart,
Brownlee, Sask.
Oat prices
To the Editor:
In a recent article in the Calgary Herald, it stated that Ceapro Inc. purchases oats here in Alberta for $400-$500 per tonne which is $6.16-$7.71 per bushel. Researching a little further, I found that Ceapro has entered into alliance with Alberta Wheat Pool, who will exclusively supply them with the oats they need.
I have grown and sold oats in the feed market, through the elevators and into the pony market. In none of these markets have I ever received a price even close to what Ceapro Inc. is paying. This year if my oats are good enough to be sold in the pony oats market, the most I may receive is $150/tonne or $2.30/bushel, and that is through the elevator. Even if cleaning, polishing and transportation of my oats is required in Alberta, I still cannot see it costing the company $3.86-$5.41 per bushel to do this. Where exactly does the difference in price go?
We as farmers produce a raw resource which is used for countless different products, yet our return on our effort is barely more and most times only equal to the cost of production. When are we as farmers, who take all the risks in producing the grain, going to either take control of our product or get paid justly for our efforts?
– Jim Hugo,
Three Hills, Alta.
Pig factories
To the Editor:
I must comment on Garry Fairbairn’s column on Nov. 20. A paper presented by Gary Maas of Iowa, at the Saskatchewan Pork Industry Symposium said, “Neighbors are preventing neighbors from expanding their businesses.”
Well, boo hoo! Why do you suppose that is? Most likely due to the stink that will be created by the hog manure lagoons and the days the manure is spread on the land. There is always a risk in these high-intensity outfits of a lagoon spill or leaching of minerals down into the water table.
Maas said that the neighbors were jealous of the farmers expanding their swine operations. Pig manure! Fear and outrage, maybe, but not jealousy!
Rampant expansion of any industry without intense environmental assessment amounts to oppression of local citizens’ right to clean air and water.
The irrational idea that bigger pig factories is good for the neighborhood is nonsense. All it does is satisfy the shareholders’ sense of greed. They satisfy their greed at the expense of their neighbors’ well-being.
The neighbor might be raising a moderate number of pigs, too. But when the other guy buys into the corporate pig-raising monopoly, from grain to processing, the result is the same thing that happens to a family-owned clothing store when Wal-Mart moves into town. North Carolina lost 73 percent of its family-owned pork producers between 1982 and 1994, because of the influx of corporate hog farming. The difference is “market access.”
Then there is the cost to rural communities. A 1990 study in Nebraska found that increasingly corporate ownership in agriculture leads to population decline, lower incomes, fewer community services, less participation in the democratic process, less retail trade, environmental pollution, more unemployment and an emerging rigid class structure.
Local citizens have every
right to try to fight off unsustainable, outrageous, industrial pig factories.
– Deborah Gregorash,
Coaldale, Alta.
Four wheelers
To the Editor:
In his letter “Four wheeler?” (Jan. 8 Western Producer), G. J. Talbourdet asks why, with modern technology, nobody has developed a four-wheeled enclosed bicycle. He suggests such a machine could attain speeds of 35-50 mph, and that it could be used in winter.
He may be interested to discover that the “Velocar,” an enclosed, reclined bicycle, was developed in France before WWII. It easily beat the reigning champion cyclist, and was quickly outlawed by the governing body of bicycle racing as an unfair design for competition.
Unusual bicycle designs have regularly appeared since; many have been very successful, although illegal to race against regular bikes.
Plenty of folks share Mr. Talbourdet’s enthusiasm for a more practical bicycle.
The International Human Powered Vehicle Association hosts an Internet site, “http://www.ihpva.org” which provides information not only about high-tech bicycles, but even human-powered aircraft and submarines!
Locally, Edmonton bike designer Robert den Hartigh has started Cyclone, a company manufacturing high-performance “recumbent” bikes.
They’re fun, look like a fast lawn chair on two wheels, and unlike regular bikes, are very comfortable for cyclists of all ages.
– Alan Schietzsch,
Edmonton, Alta.
Brother’s keeper
To the Editor:
It is highly unlikely that we will ever again hear of another referendum in Quebec.
El Nino’s ice storm brought home the reality that we cannot find gold at the rainbow’s end.
Man was not meant to live in solitary, not even nations can subsist alone.
Manitoba had floods; Alberta ranchers’ prairie fires that destroyed both feed and animals. Donations in such times exceed all expectations.
We are, after all, our brother’s keeper.
Although our governments render assistance, the aid from individuals reminds us that others care about our wellbeing.
– H. W. Jackson,
Falher, Alta.
Protects farmers
To the Editor:
I’m sick and tired of hearing about getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board.
It was organized to help the small farmer in selling his grain. Would you like to be forced to sell your grain on the open market after harvest and take whatever you can get it?
A lot of farmers couldn’t do that right after harvest, but were forced to sell the grain at a depressed price in order to live.
The farmers that could hold their grain till the prices on the open market were double of what was offered at harvest made good, but the ones that couldn’t, lost out. Imagine organizing yourself to bring in better prices for our grain at that time and the government listened.
I really hated it when we grew flax. We had to spend lots of time listening to the open market for the right price. …
A farmer taking care of his own grain marketing wouldn’t have time to do the basic farming. He’d have to have a grain buyer just for this.
We’re in the business of growing the grain, the best there is. No Canadian Wheat Board and we’d all be in a fix. Who do you trust, how much will other people take advantage of the farmer?
Don’t we have enough other problems to iron out in our farming? Input costs, what to seed and on and on?
I’m glad that the Wheat Board is doing this job. The final payment spreads out our cash flow in our operations. It’s better to get a delayed payment of the grain sold than getting paid everything at the elevator.
Management of our business is easier too. At least when selling our grain at harvest, it’s not the final payment on that grain. We know there’s some more money coming for that grain.
The farmers in the States envy us because of us having a Canadian Wheat Board.
The grain Cartel there sure would like to see it go. If anyone has control on prices, it’s them, not the Canadian Wheat Board.
Can any farmer farming in Saskatchewan afford to go on a grain selling trip to get buyers to buy our grain without the Canadian Wheat Board? I don’t think so. None of us can afford to do this. Sure, technology has come a long way since we’ve started to farm but the bottom line is, we are growers and we’ve become experts at it.
With all this technology, it hasn’t allowed younger farmers to make a viable living from farming without their fathers’ holding the fort. … So please don’t add another problem to farming by doing away with the Canadian Wheat Board.
– Yvonne Jalbert,
Lafleche, Sask.
U.S. cattle
To the Editor:
Re: Some uneasy over deal on feeder cattle heading north or south of the border.
Seems to me that years ago most of the cattle came here from the U.S. to start the cattle herds. It’s just a matter of Canada and U.S. working out health problems with cattle, as neither country wants cattle with health problems.
If one was to check what is coming into Canada from the U.S. that one does not see, you may find that farm machinery is mostly U.S. made. All the green fresh food comes from the U.S. to Canada, you name it. But I see nothing wrong in U.S. cattle coming north to our feedlots.
– John Pokorney,
Tilley, Alta.
Weighted votes
To the Editor:
As we enter the eve of the new millennium, the face of agriculture may be changing and not for the better. Smaller and mid-size farmers, “awake” if you want to stay in this industry. Your basic democratic right of voting on matters that you should have an “equal” say in, or an influence on, will be taken away.
Witness the following: The Wheat Growers’ Association says that large farmers deserve a weighted vote on CWB elections. Large pork interests (Sask Pool included?), want weighted votes on pork marketing issues.
The Reform Party entertains this as an idea whose time has come. And the Grits lie in the reeds like a snake, supporting these underhanded schemes.
Who’s next? The Cattlemen’s Association? The Canola Producers? Think about it.
These groups espouse democracy but only pursue their own self interests. The WGA bellyaches about the undemocratic Wheat Board, but the WGA will take your vote away. Sask Pool was founded on the principles of a co-operative, including one man, one vote. And Reformers claim they represent the democratic grassroots.
Fellow producers, the time is coming to confront the various commodity groups, agricultural companies, and interests that promote the agenda that big is better; that the big are more equal than others.
I challenge agricultural groups and companies to publicly state their organizations’ platform on one man, one vote vis-a-vis any issue that involves the vote of the producer. The Western Producer can provide an excellent forum to inform us.
So starting with Sask Pool and the junior Pools, what is your stand? For those of you who are undemocratic, the time has come for the smaller and mid-size farmer to vote his support and business elsewhere.
– Merv Cradduck,
Purple Springs, Alta.
Road finance
To the Editor:
Saskatchewan wants to twin our main highways. Finding the roughly $200 million needed seems to be a problem.
Strangely enough, our government debts offer a way to raise the money. The poor management of our economy over the past two decades provides a way to improve our roads and save money at the same time.
To do it will mean thinking clearly about the two options available.
We can twin the roads and add over a billion dollars to our debts. Or, we can build the roads and lower our debt load by over $200 million. It all depends on how we finance.
It shouldn’t take long to decide which option to choose.
But choices should be made based on information. So before making the obvious choice, let’s look at the circumstances that make such a windfall possible.
All our debts plus interest, both federal and provincial, will be paid someday out of tax revenues. So if we borrow the money to twin the roads in the conventional manner, using 30-year bonds at six percent, we will eventually pay back almost six bucks for every dollar borrowed. Our $200 million road will cost over a billion dollars. That is what we have been doing.
There is a different way to do things. When our government created the Bank of Canada (our central bank) in the 1930s, it gave the bank the power to lend to the provinces, or the federal government at nominal rates, (one percent or less), and for several years it did so.
There are limits to this power and limits are necessary. But building roads should be within the boundaries. …
So now we can get the money. Half from Ottawa, half from Regina. If the central bank lends the money to Ottawa and Regina at the one percent rate over 30 years, we can build the road and save a bundle.
Here is how. After spending $200 million on the road, both parties will wind up with about $40 million in new taxes. If they use their $40 million to retire existing debt, by the time the bonds mature in 2029, each party will have saved about $220 million in interest.
The bonds, including interest, will amount to around $130 million. So, using the tools that are there, we can have our road and save the taxpayer a bundle. Just proves you can have your cake and eat it too.
If we did this, we would save lives, create jobs, reduce social spending, and so on.
The only negative will be some reduced interest income for bond holders and a few less commissions for bond salesmen.
It is kind of hard to figure out why we aren’t doing it.
– John Keen,
Riceton, Sask.
Doing Reform job
To the Editor:
I would like to take this opportunity to correct a wrong impression left by Lorne Radcliffe of Cardale, Man. (“CWB support,” p.7, The Western Producer Jan. 1) I congratulate the writer for expressing his opinion but he has failed to do his homework on how democracy, (such as it is), works in this country, or how Bill C-4 might affect his fellow farmers. …
The Reform Party is not delaying, bluffing or practising “dirty politics” with this or any other bill. We are doing our jobs, which is to hold up all government legislation to scrutiny.
C-4 was in the house for “first reading” before going back to committee.
It will return for “second reading” in February, at which time we will debate it again.
Hopefully, the government will show enough concern the next time to have more than two of its members in the House, as was the case in December.
The Reform Party recognizes the value of marketing boards when they are properly run, i.e. run for the benefit of producers. But we are fighting C-4 because the Liberal government refuses to break the grip of a self-serving monopoly. …
It still wants government appointees to run the CWB.
It still wants those appointees to report to the Minister in Ottawa. It still wants to shield the Board from real scrutiny and accountability.
It wants to expand the reach of the monopoly and continue to outlaw any other methods for Western farmers to market their own products.
That’s not what my constituents voted for in 1997, and I wouldn’t be doing my job if that is what I voted for in Ottawa.
– Gerry Ritz, MP,
North Battleford, Sask.
Pistol packers
To the Editor:
The decision by our powers that be in Regina to equip our conservation officers with sidearms has given me cause to ponder various aspects of authoritarianism and libertarianism. Recently I watched an award-winning CBC documentary entitled “Jobs to Die For,” which chronicled the lives of several convenience-store clerks and their experiences with, to use a politically unacceptable term these days, bandits.
What does best illustrate that principle of John Donne (“Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind”): the ideas of pistol-packing libertarian Daryl Briscoe or the dogmatic wisdom of our current crop of politicians? Is it time perhaps, to do a little psychological screening of those who make the laws, as well as those we ask to enforce them?
– Tom Lamont,
Maidstone, Sask.
