Biofuel research
What an excellent article on grain biofuel in last week’s (April 3) Western Producer by Ken Sigurdson. I hope most biofuel investors will reconsider their investment in this industry and not throw their money out the window.
Our federal agriculture minister, Gerry Ritz, has been far less than truthful on this subject and our Saskatchewan government seems to be just following along.
A recent CNN article on biofuel from algae is forecasting that they will be able to generate 100,000 gallons of ethanol per acre as compared to 30 gallons per acre with cereal grains. Now, if this algae forecast is out by a factor of 100, and can only make 1,000 gallons per acre, this is still 33 times what can be made from grains.
Read Also
Rural emergency room closures continue to be vexing problem
Staffing issues are at the root of disruptions and closures in hospital emergency departments, both in rural and urban Canadian locations.
In the end it comes down to cost of production, and biofuel from grain is complete folly no matter how you look at it, as Ken’s article points out.
In Canada there is no reason why we could not use this technology. For instance, setting up an algae plant beside a sewage treatment plant could provide food for the algae, heat capture for greenhouses and/or waste heat from refineries, sewage plants or other industrial processes could provide the heat necessary for growth in winter. This could turn a problematic human waste into fuel that truly is carbon neutral and doesn’t rely on low feed prices.
Why, you may think, isn’t our government encouraging research into algae instead of the money pit of biofuel from grain? Write a letter to Gerry Ritz and ask him. He may call you names like “the tin hat decoder ring set,” but ignore his obvious dislike of anyone that doesn’t see things his way and ask him to back up his statements with some scientific facts that are verifiable. Good luck on that.
– Dave Fries,
Zehner, Sask.
Duty of care
Until a CBC As It Happens piece was aired several years ago, I was unaware of the full extent of personal legal responsibility embodied in the power granted in a directorship of a major corporation.
The segment told of a then recently named director’s experience when it was discovered that under the previous board’s watch, the organization had fallen behind with Canada Pension Plan contributions. In the legal action which ensued, it was determined that the current board bore legal, personal and financial responsibility for the harm even though many directors had not been present when the harm occurred and as such had no opportunity to prevent it.
As stated in the “CWB feuds over ethics” piece (WP, March 13) when an individual joins a board as director, he signs onto or agrees to a 6,000 word code which outlines his fiduciary responsibility to “act in the best interest of the corporation at all times.” This, I understand, is fairly standard procedure for board members of all corporations.
Director Jim Chatenay, as a director of CWB owes a duty of care to the Canadian Wheat Board and through that to all the farmers in Western Canada whose grain is sold through the corporation. As a CWB director, Mr. Chatenay is well aware that his presence at a public meeting dealing with grain marketing issues will be interpreted as being a representative of the CWB.
In light of the code, his position that he was attending the meeting in question “as an individual farmer” is pretty much untenable. His suggestion that “farmers should boycott grain deliveries” in order to “interfere with the Board’s meeting their commitments” is irresponsible, reprehensible and quite possibly illegal in that, if carried out, such a suggestion could hurt the pool returns, thousands of western farmers’ incomes, Canada’s reputation as a reliable supplier and the corporation to which he has undertaken a duty of care.
If he feels that strongly about his freedom and his choice, he should resign his directorship and attend farm meetings in whatever capacity he chooses.
One of our biggest regrets is that the weight of the personal moral, legal, and financial responsibility embodied in these director’s codes had not been more widely understood by the western farming community when the prairie pools were being lost.
– Beverly R. Stow,
Carman, Man.
CWB brainwash
I cannot believe the brainwashed people who are never willing for change or betterment. They would stick with the old, even if it meant starvation.
The Canadian Wheat Board was brought in to give Britain cheap grain for food in war times. It may have helped farmers of that era. … Today we have the internet and are very capable, and we are savvy businessmen. Why do many of us degrade ourselves?
We can be as smart as we want to be. There are many grain companies and competition is good.
Ontario and Quebec are not under the CWB monopoly. Why? We get jailed for selling our own produce. One letter to the Open Forum stated that hog and cattle prices are low because of open markets. In reply, why have grain prices been low for the last decade or more?…
I also don’t believe the CWB should be in the business of lending money. There are many outstanding advance accounts they will never collect. I know of some older farmers who have taken advances and did not need it.
They put the money in a bank for a year, collected interest on it to take a vacation, and then paid it back before the year was up, while younger farmers, because of low prices, bad weather, etc., could not pay within a year, and then interest accumulated.
I am also disgusted that the National Farmers Union takes the side of the CWB. I thought they were there for the good of all farmers. What has the NFU ever done for us anyway, besides collect memberships?
Do you people who protect CWB really think they make no profits? Wake up. Smell the coffee.
Stephen Harper at least has the guts to stand up and do something and not just line his pockets the way the Liberals did and the way the NDP would do if they had a leg to stand on. …
– Bernice Tiringer,
Spiritwood, Sask.
Equipment play
I was shocked to see Mary MacArthur’s photo depicting Ashley Tolsma (WP, April 3) hanging from the earth mover at the Farm and Ranch show. The bar is far too large for any kind of grip, plus (her) head is bent back at such an angle that a fall would have resulted in severe head-neck trauma.
Children should never be encouraged to play on machinery. It is totally irresponsible to publish such a photo.
– Evelyn Schnaider,
Barthel, Sask.
Hog crisis
As a farmer, I understand how hard our Saskatchewan producers work to make a living and I was disappointed to see news of Stomp Farms’ struggles. My colleagues and I are committed to helping family farms no matter how big or small and our government will continue to work hard to help pork producers in Saskatchewan.
This government continues to put farmers first and that is why we promised flexible, bankable, national agriculture programs and those programs are already delivering $1.5 billion for struggling livestock producers.
Canadian livestock producers told us they needed short-term loans to weather the storm and this government worked hand-in-hand with them to deliver real results for them and their families.
We are improving the Advance Payments Program to increase emergency advances from a maximum of $25,000 to $400,000, with up to $100,000 interest free.
This change will make up to $3.3 billion in loans available to Canadian hog and cattle producers this year. …
Some concerns have been raised about payment caps under these programs. The producer groups and provincial governments that worked with us to develop these programs recognized the importance of this accountability to Canadian taxpayers. Because of our co-operation we have programs that can deliver help to as many farmers as possible.
This government listens to Canadian farmers and we are committed to continuing our work with livestock producers to help them face current struggles and create new opportunities for the industry.
– Gerry Ritz,
Minister of Agriculture and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board,
Ottawa, Ont.
Grain Mecca
I read that (members of) the (Western Canadian) Wheat Growers (Association) made a trip to the Minneapolis Grain Exchange … (and) I noted the president of the wheat growers said it was like going to Mecca.
I have never been to Mecca, but I understand it is the holiest of the holy in the Muslim faith. Therefore, the grain exchange must be regarded similarly in the grain business.
But I read that most grain companies and processors have turned away from the futures market and buy and sell flat, back to back. They say the commodity markets have become dysfunctional because the hedge funds have been pouring money into the market and trade in signs and charts instead of supply and demand and run the prices up.
The dramatic drop was due to the hedge funds selling. I wonder who got caught in the squeeze?
I hope they took the time to visit the large hedge funds offices. It seems that is where the prices are determined.
Doesn’t sound like Mecca to me.
– Avery Sahl,
Mossbank, Sask.
Ritz & CWB
Our dictatorship in Ottawa seems to want to get rid of the best grain marketing organization in the world, the Canadian Wheat Board. I hope the opposition parties don’t bring down the government over the CWB issue. If there is an election (the Conservatives) would probably end up with a majority and then have the power to do what they want.
If there is an election, I think (federal agriculture minister Gerry) Ritz should consider the vote in his constituency a decision about the CWB. If he gets defeated the government should leave the CWB alone.
Do you really think the tin hatted farmers in his area will elect him so he can insult them again and again? Power has gone to his head.
He needs a rude awakening. I’ve grown barley for 50 years and I never even got a ballot in the plebiscite he held. How misleading the final count was will never be known.
– Robert Iverson,
Meota, Sask.
CWB interest
Charlie Kaufman had an interesting idea in the March 27th issue of The Western Producer. The idea of having producers either in or out of collective marketing seems a reasonable compromise.
I raise a potential problem, though. If two brothers were farming together, one could use the CWB and one be marketing alone. Husband and wives could do the same. They could move grain between themselves before marketing through the CWB or by themselves.
It seems to me that this would be hard to prevent. There is one more CWB question I ask of WP readers. Critics of the CWB have argued that proponents have exaggerated single desk benefits by including interest savings. This is admittedly not a direct benefit of the single desk.
My question is, could farmers achieve the interest savings achieved by the CWB any other way?
– Jeff Jones,
Duval, Sask.
Bountiful berries
Across the Prairies, the early settlers found an abundance of wild fruits already known and used by First Nations people.
These fruits and berries were wild strawberries, raspberries, pincherries, gooseberries, moss berries, saskatoons, chokecherries, blueberries, wild plum, black current, high and low bush cranberries and wild filbert (hazelnut).
The strawberry was as different from the blueberry, as the blueberry was different from the black current, for example. One wonders where these fruits originated.
These fruits and berries that are so common domestically now are further developed (by) our universities, thankfully.
– T. Peddie,
Camrose, Alta.
Into the fire
If farmers ever want to have justice in marketing, whether it is cattle or grain, we must work together instead of letting a few multinationals keep us under their thumb.
We have freedom and choice to market cattle and where has that left us? The same would go for barley and wheat. Many sellers will only bid the price down. If we want change, we must be careful not to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
We see that Australia is letting many companies into selling their grain. Every one of these merchants of grain wants to make a profit. Who will pay for this? The grain growers will have to.
How can this sharing of the wealth with so many companies put more money into the farmers’ pockets?
– T. E. Finnson,
Arborg, Man.
Archaic KVD
When I read the letters written by proponents of kernel visual distinguishability, it reminds me of my younger days when I sat atop my well used 1963 model Massey Ferguson Super 92 combine.
Landlords always kept a close watch on grain loss. The Super 92 was powered by a Chrysler flathead six that hardly had enough torque to cause the machine to throw wheat over the sieves and/or walkers.
Some landlords, including my dad, walked beside the combine with an aluminum shovel to determine if the machine was throwing wheat out the back. Others would drive beside the machine, listening for the distinct clicking sound of wheat kernels being hurled by the straw spreader against the sheet metal of the passenger door of the pickup truck. Yet another might crawl in the field in a futile attempt to measure loss.
A smart landlord, however, would most likely tell his lessee to pour the coal to the old 92, and get the job done ASAP, as rain or bad weather could lessen yield much more than a few kernels on the ground. …
A company from Saskatoon by the name of Smith-Roles came up with an electronic grain loss monitor. Gone were days of the aluminum shovel and crawling in the field on all fours. In the ’70s and ’80s, electronic systems improved, grain losses could be calculated quite accurately. This was also at a time when electronic protein testers began to appear in elevators.
Would we go back to the Super 92 and visual estimates of grain loss? I hardly think so. Why anyone would trust KVD over a reliable electronic protein and moisture tester is beyond my comprehension.
I do, however, miss the distinct bark of the Chrysler six lugging through a heavy crop, and my dad, God bless his soul, telling me to cut back on the variable speed lever.
– John Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
CWB costs
In a letter published March 27, Jason van Oirschot of Porcupine Plain, Sask., takes issue with the CWB’s statement that it returns all sales revenue less marketing costs to farmers.
He cites CWB scholarships, as well as advertising and employment costs, as evidence that this statement is untrue.
For the record, CWB scholarships are financed not through sales revenues but through the CWB’s special account, comprised of interest earnings on uncashed farmer cheques.
Regarding advertising and employment costs, it is impossible to conceive of a marketing organization of any size that a) does not advertise, and b) does not appropriately reimburse its employees – let alone an organization that markets $4 billion to $6 billion worth of product each year.
The CWB notifies farmers of programs and events through paid advertising. It compensates its highly skilled and dedicated employees in keeping with current labour market standards.
Furthermore, its returns to farmers are not diluted by shareholder profits. Rather, all sales revenue less marketing costs is returned to farmers.
– Larry Hill,
Chair,
CWB board of directors,
Swift Current, Sask.
Who else?
I read with interest the many letters and editorials that appear each week in many of the farm publications regarding the Canadian Wheat Board.
To those that seem to take the view that they should be able to sell their wheat and barley to whoever they want to, I say let the majority of the active farmers decide by a vote with three options: 1. Keep the CWB; 2. Abolish the CWB; and 3. Keep the existing system. …
In my point of view, a dual marketing system would not work at all unless the CWB built an elevator handling system, which I don’t think would be at all practical. We did that a long time ago with the pools and look at where we are today. …
I read where some people feel that their influence should be tied to the amount of produce that they market. I suppose they (also) think that if they make a contribution to a political party of $100, that they should have 10 votes more than someone that only made a $10 contribution.
Thank God that our democratic system is better than that.
Producers have a lot of marketing options at the present time through the CWB, also the feed market for their barley.
I think the CWB does a lot of other things besides selling my grain – market development, research regarding what other countries want, … world weather reports, transportation issues, credit needs.
I realize that some other company or organization could do many of the same things, but at what cost and who would decide what areas would be covered? …
Who would take over the allocation of grain car movement of wheat, oilseed, pulse crops, malt barley, producer cars, etc.?…
I haven’t seen any answers to many of the questions that I have and until they are answered I don’t feel that the present marketing system should be changed.
I think that the present government’s treatment of the CWB is terrible. I feel that if they treat an issue like they have regarding the marketing of our malt barley and export wheat, I don’t see how any one could trust them to be fair on any other issue. …
– Gerald Raspberry,
Worsley, Alta.
More on signals
In a recent letter to the editor (Open Forum, March 27), Greg Arason (now ex-president of the CWB) says I’m distorting facts when I suggest that the 2008-09 Pool Return Outlook for malt barley is creating price signal problems.ÂÂ
Although he misses many important points, he ends up agreeing with my main point, and that is that farmers need to resist the urge to carry over malt barley stocks into next year, even though the 08-09 PRO is $70 per tonne higher than the 07-08 PRO.
Mr. Arason says that U.S. malt barley farmers are getting similar price signals. But according to the CWB, U.S. farmers are pretty well sold out of their 2007 crops and can’t take advantage of the recent high prices.
If that’s true, then they’d have a hard time carrying over any grain into the next crop year to take advantage of those high prices too. You can’t argue it both ways.
Mr. Arason thinks that the problem I was addressing is that farmers might ship malt barley into the feed barley channels. But he missed the mark here too. I was addressing the real concern that some farmers will hold malt barley from one crop year to the next.
Since Mr. Arason thinks $70 per tonne “is little incentive” for producers to withhold malting barley for later delivery, perhaps he and the CWB need to re-think the “incremental payments” on fixed price contracts they pay farmers for delivery of grain “later in the crop year.”ÂÂ
These tend to add up to far less than the $70 per tonne we’re talking about here.
Besides, he needs to get out more and actually talk to farmers. The reason I wrote the piece in the first place is because we’ve been talking to many farmers who are talking about doing exactly what Mr. Arason thinks there is little incentive to do.
– John De Pape,
Winnipeg, Man.
