Fertilizer prices
I want to bring to your attention an intolerable situation farmers are facing regarding input costs, particularly fertilizer prices.
Last year anhydrous ammonia was selling for $885 per tonne in Manitoba. Across the line in Minnesota it was selling for $555 Cdn. Granular nitrogen and phosphate is priced similarly.
I was advised by our local dealer that potash is simply not available this year. It’s all being shipped to the United States. This is not a case of supply and demand. American customers are paying less for fertilizer than we are even though it is manufactured here.
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?
Our prices jumped again this year. When I checked prices, I discovered that we are paying $150 per tonne more than Manitoba and $100 per tonne more than Saskatoon for granular nitrogen even though we are about equal distance from the point of manufacture.
Upon further investigation, I found that Agrium prices the fertilizer from Minneapolis. In other words, the price we are paying is based on freight from Minneapolis. Our fertilizer is shipped one quarter of that distance.
Successive governments have allowed U.S. companies to gain control of the majority of Canadian fertilizer manufacturing, a situation that would never be tolerated in the U.S.
Governments have helped to create the problem, so government should correct this predatory pricing problem.
– Roger Brandl,
Fort St. John, B.C.
Selling grain
Doug Scott of Waskatenau, Alta., claims (Open Forum, Feb. 28) the freedom of choice group as being “blinded by their ideology.”
That is a bold statement for someone who obviously has no idea of their ideology, which is to give farmers the choice of who markets their grain. This choice will include the CWB if it can meet the price and delivery requirements of the farmer.
“Currently, western Canadian grain farmers are recognized as the world’s best supplier of quality milling wheat.”
It is not the CWB that ensures the quality. Quality is a function of variety development, the farmer’s production system and our grading system, all of which are beyond the scope of the CWB and best left to other agencies.
Mr. Scott goes on to equate “control and influence in the quality world wheat trade” as a need “at a time when world wheat stocks are at an all time low and new era of global food shortages looms.”
Let’s assume he is not overstating a short term production shortfall as an era of global food shortages. If this is the case, the last consideration a buyer will make is for quality. They will seek quantity at a low price.
Mr. Scott accuses the freedom of choice lobby of “spew(ing) forth misinformation, disinformation and outright lies,” but provides no credible evidence to back his claims. It is because of rhetoric like Mr. Scott’s there can be no real debate between the two opposing viewpoints.
One only has to look and see all the value-added industries developed and invested in by western Canadian farmers to see how powerful the CWB voice is for farmers. Of all commodities grown in Western Canada, milling wheat is the only one without a supporting value-added industry.
I may not have been producing cereals, pulses and oilseeds as long as Mr. Scott but I do know the marketing opportunities I have with pulses and oilseeds contribute significantly more to my profitability than the marketing of cereals.
– Darin Egert,
Cando, Sask.
Be real
MP David Anderson fingers the Canadian Wheat Board as being responsible for the fact that many thousands of farmers have been driven off the land during the last 30 years.
It is quite obvious that once again he won’t let truth or fact intrude when he wants to believe otherwise. Mustard, canola, feed barley, feed wheat, oats, flax, peas, lentils, pork and beef are all sold through the open market. Only malt barley and milling wheat are handled exclusively by the CWB.
In other words, 80 percent of farmers’ grain and livestock are marketed through the so-called free market system.
In fairly recent years (2005-06) canola and feed barley were the money losers on my farm. At the present time it is beef. All three of these commodities are sold through the open market. Yet Mr. Anderson blames the CWB for farmers’ financial problems….
As long as (Anderson’s) government wrongfully blames the CWB for farmers’ financial problems, the real cause of the problem will not be addressed….
– George E. Hickie,
Waldron, Sask.
Drainage & health
Some farmers expressed their wildlife crop problems on CBC radio. A caller was disturbed because a watershed inspector rejected water draining from flooded cropping land into a suitable draining area.
That farmer declared undrained cropland will decrease seeding. Drainage was still refused. No wonder some farmers suffer health problems.
Being so disturbed explains why such farmers are slow to say flooded cropland not only reduces crop production (but) it also pollutes the environment and causes soil salinity.
In addition, it makes way for weeds like thistles, quackgrass, kills nice trees and attracts ducks, geese and deer, which pollute and destroy field crops, spread weeds and disease.
Flax is a valuable crop. I quit growing flax because deer are quick to attack such a crop. Geese don’t give peas a chance. This proves wildlife groups have no respect for farmers and the environment, yet small-minded farmers support wildlife groups. …
A few farmers have listed their losses because of wildlife. I farm four quarters. Wildlife caused me about $50,000 loss….
– Stuart Makaroff,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Cheaper milk
The Harper government wants to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, yet they claim to support supply management.
Their main reason for the destruction of the CWB single-desk is so that farmers can be “free,” just like farmers in the United States whose only buyers are a handful of multinational grain traders that control 80 percent of the global grain trade.
If Harper was consistent and revealed his true policies, he would give farmers in the supply managed sector marketing choice.
One can imagine the possibilities here all of the western dairy farmers could look forward to having one buyer – Saputo. The Harper government could tell them this is the free market and Saputo would compete to buy their milk.
The Harper government’s real view is that dairy, poultry and egg producers should be free to compete in the world market. So my message to supply managed farmers is don’t be fooled.
Supply management is popular in Ontario and Quebec, so Harper has to reassure them that he supports supply management and that everything is fine.
Meanwhile, the Harper government replaced all of the government appointed directors of the CWB with CWB haters. These people have failed farmers in the past and are only there to gut the CWB, and vote against any progressive initiatives that farmer elected directors put forward.
Agriculture minister Gerry Ritz states that he wants to take barley from the CWB so that he can provide cheaper grain for the feeding industry.
Grain farmers cannot afford to grow cheap grain to subsidize the cattle industry that is dominated by two multinational corporations. Would milk producers want to subsidize the dairy processing corporations with cheap milk?
It should be noted that Mr. Ritz’s farming experience has been as an ostrich farmer. Mr. Ritz, how low do barley prices have to go so that ostrich farming can be profitable?
Ontario and Quebec farmers and all farmers in supply management need to realize that Harper is attacking all marketing boards and if the Harper government comes back with a majority, all bets are off for farmers in the supply managed sector.
– Brendan Sigurdson,
Swan River, Man.
Blue in face
Comments made by Gerry Ritz, federal minister of agriculture, according to an article in the Feb. 14 issue of The Western Producer, were totally uncalled for.
A surefire way to build division and mistrust between himself and producers of agricultural commodities is to call them shortsighted and tell them to diversify.
No one is less shortsighted than farmers. They have diversified until they are blue in the face.
They have heeded the advice of everyone who is involved in the ag industry by adopting new farming techniques, trying new products, encouraging research, expanding, downsizing, following environmentalists’ recommendations, and the list goes on. None of these endeavours means a thing if you do not get paid for what you do.
The development of ethanol and biodiesel is the responsibility of the industry that produces fuel for this country. While agricultural producers will become suppliers to this industry, the onus is not on farmers to invest in it or develop it.
Their products also go to bakeries, pasta factories, frozen food markets and packing plants. Surely they are not expected to invest their returns in these as well, in order to ensure a place to market their commodities?
By the exorbitant monies they pay to the fertilizer industry, the chemical companies, the machinery manufacturers and the transportation systems, they are already investing a substantial amount.
Producers who indicated interest in investing in proposed ethanol plants had more than likely arrived at that position because they were desperate to recover some kind of profit from their money, time and labour.
With the arrival of higher grain prices, however, enduring or short-lived, producers are relieved that the pressure has eased a little. Maybe farmers can be farmers again.
It is a certainty that, should the current high prices continue, inputs costs will rise dramatically as every supplier tries to grab a piece of the pie. Are producers wrong to ask their federal agriculture leader to address these uncontrolled costs? …
For Gerry Ritz to suggest that farmers should recognize that these higher prices should not be counted on to continue is like telling a fish not to get wet. No one knows better how uncertain things can be than farmers….
Who else will use ethanol and biodiesel? Is it not the entire nation, indeed the entire planet that is to benefit from the use of these two fuels? Let producers do what they are supposed to do: produce.
Perhaps Mr. Ritz should not be so shortsighted and take a look at the bigger picture.
– Margo D. Allen,
Gull Lake, Sask.
Using barley
There is a lot of confusion in the media over barley marketing that should be clarified.
As an Alberta farmer I know that barley for human use and export to other countries must be marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board. Barley, wheat and durum wheat for export and human use such as malt and milling must also be marketed through the CWB.
Other grains, such as feed wheat, feed barley, oilseeds, flax and rye are not sold through the CWB, so the profits go to the private trade.
Many Canadians, even in agriculture do not understand this.
Giving corporate control to the grain industry would be a great benefit to the grain company that Brian Mulroney is a member of the board.
– Harvey R. Thomas,
Alliance, Alta.
Bins empty
Re: Price difference letter from Mr. Herb Axten (Open Forum, March 6)
Mr. Axten wonders why wheat is selling for $20 per bushel in Montana while our latest Pool Return Outlook is in the $12 range. He then challenges the wheat board supporters to justify these price disparities.
Well, I’m a wheat board supporter, Herb, and it’s quite easy to explain the disparities.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently released figures that showed approximately 85 percent of the U.S. wheat was sold within a few weeks of harvest completion, at an average price of about $6.50. This obviously looked like a fairly attractive price at that time.
With the CWB’s extensive data on crop conditions, harvest potential, and world stocks, all monitored throughout the year, they prudently captured sales as the market has been rising. This will give our producers the much higher return you refer to.
In short, it doesn’t matter if the price quoted in Montana is $20, or $30, or $50 – if the bins are empty then there’s nothing to sell.
Any idea at what price you would have “pulled the trigger” if you were selling your own wheat to a grain company rather than having our marketing agency do the selling directly to the end user? Justify that to the wheat board supporters out here.
– Don Scott,
Garrick, Sask.
CWB & ewe
The excellent letter by John Hamon, “Work boots” on Feb. 28 has prompted me to submit an outsider’s view of the ongoing Canadian Wheat Board controversy.
I have never grown grain for sale since we raise sheep, so I can only understand the CWB thing from my experience with sheep.
To me, our flock of ewes represents the thousands of prairie grain growers. The ewes are kind of innocent and blissfully unaware of the dangers that our guardian dogs are valiantly protecting them from. The lambs are the grain and are easily suckered away from the ewes.
The guardian dogs that protect the flock and keep it safe from predators represent the CWB.
The foxes, which are a nuisance, but no real menace to the ewes, represent those few noisy right wing grain producers who are forever trying to circumvent the CWB. If the guardian dogs can ever catch a fox, they kill it quickly.
The coyotes represent the private grain companies, which are always hanging about unseen, but forever trying to separate the lambs from the ewes. The coyotes are the biggest ongoing problem for the sheep.
Until guardian dogs were brought in years ago, there was no viable sheep industry, because there was no protection from the coyotes.
The odd young wolf that shows up represents a provincial government that tries to free the sheep from the domination by the guardian dogs, and allow the coyotes more freedom. The young wolves make loud noises, scaring everybody, and periodically threaten the ewes, but healthy guardian dogs can handle them.
Old lobo wolves are the federal government. They are rarely a threat. However, if unchecked by weakened guardian dogs, old wolves can easily destroy a flock.
As the flock owner, I represent the Parliament of Canada. I can ensure the health and strength of the guardian dogs, but only as long as I remain calm and respect the original reason for having the guardian dogs. Sometimes I become complacent, trusting the guardian dogs implicitly, and not remembering how disastrous it was before they were here.
Once my government in power becomes a majority and is ideologically influenced by the coyotes, I lose control and the guardian dogs will likely be eliminated. When all the lambs are picked off, coyotes will start eating the ewes.
Eventually they will even turn to the foxes for food. When the coyotes have destroyed the flock, they, along with the wolves, slink off into the bush and hunt other game.
This may sound like a stupid story, but it’s the only way I can figure out this whole can of worms. I just wish that prairie grain growers would quit acting like sheep, realize that the CWB may in fact be their best protection, and stop wandering aimlessly into regions that may destroy their future.
– L. T. Jones,
Fairview, Alta.
Latimer pain
This is in reply to Ron Henschell’s letter in the Feb. 28 issue of The Western Producer.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion on the Robert Latimer case. But when you made the statement “I don’t believe she was in pain” you’re wrong.
You certainly haven’t been following this sad story from day one or you would have known all the facts.
Tracy had several operations and was scheduled to have the most serious and difficult one. The doctors were putting a rod up her spine. You would also have known that Tracy was on medication to control convulsions and as a result could not take painkillers.
You say pain is easily managed nowadays. Not always true. It’s the severity of the pain and how many months and years it goes on. The human body builds up immunity even to morphine and Demerol. Ask anyone whose lost a loved one to cancer.
If Robert had done this for his own selfish reasons, as you say, do you think he’d have lived this life for 12 years? I don’t think so. He could have put her into an institution but he knew her suffering would continue.
The only thing Robert Latimer is guilty of is loving his daughter enough to end her suffering in the only way he knew how when there was no law to help him. It’s legal for families to pull life supports from loved ones so some way, somehow there has to be a law passed to help someone like Tracy who can’t speak for herself.
Robert has paid his debt to society and should be a free man….
– Pat Johnson,
Gainsborough, Sask.
No bio cash
In answer to (federal agriculture minister) Gerry Ritz telling farmers to smarten up and put their newfound grain prices into the bio(fuel) industry, I wonder if he looked at past years where farmers have been growing grain below the cost of production, and believe me, crop insurance does not cover it.
How many debts have been built up over these years? How much machinery has not been updated?
As to the grain prices, they are only for No. 1 and there is freight and elevator charges to be deducted. All our oats and wheat was feed, so no big prices there, but the fertilizer costs are up 31 percent from last year.
The U.S. gets it cheaper and it comes from here and China cheaper yet. They tell us we’re paying the world price. We seem to be in our own high world price compared to other countries. Not to mention the high chemical and fuel prices we pay.
The grain prices can drop at the drop of a hat, but the input costs won’t.
If Mr. Ritz wants money from farmers put into the bio industry, I suggest he use the excess money the railroads have been overcharging us for freight and give it to them instead of the research foundation. These amounts are in the millions.
– Karen Walden,
Wadena, Sask.
How much?
Mr. Herb Axten’s quote of grain prices at the Berthold, N.D. elevator aroused my interest. (Open Forum, March 6.)
Can he document how much wheat was actually sold to that elevator at the price stated?
Methinks that after the first five, 10 or 20,000 bushels is bought in order to fill an immediate contract, that quoted price would be significantly reduced.
– George Burton,
Humboldt, Sask.
