I told you so
Re: the downsizing of the hog industry, at this time I am tempted to say that I told you so.
You see, I am fortunate enough to remember many years ago when we were in the House of Commons. The agriculture committee was discussing the legislation for supply management at the time. The first draft of the bill encompassed all agriculture products. After many long hours of discussion in the committee, the red meat industry was taken from the bill and all that was left was the poultry industry.
Read Also
Higher farmland taxes for investors could solve two problems
The highest education and health care land tax would be for landlords, including investment companies, with no family ties to the land.
The bill included eggs, chicken and turkeys. These producers agreed to work across Canada to produce these products under both provincial and federal legislation. It is called supply management and is under a watch dog group called the National Farm Products Marketing Council.
The producers of the poultry products have never cost the government a penny since the start up. At that time they received $250,000. The oldest group of these producers is the egg producers. They have never received any money since start up. The same thing goes for the chicken and turkey producers.
If these producers are efficient, they can make money. So can the processors and the retailers. All should be able to make money. They all work together on an agreed system of production supply. In the true concept of Confederation, it is giving the people of Canada a guaranteed supply of reasonably priced products that are of a high a quality as there is in the world.
The same thing can be said about the dairy industry. This industry operates under a separate legislation. We have the healthiest dairy industry in the world, which produces some of the highest quality dairy products in the world. …
I question the economist’s advice we received about getting rid of the Crowsnest Pass subsidy. This was established to get grains to the exports ports of Canada. We were told to keep the feed grain in Canada and to process it through animals such as pork, beef and poultry. These actions would help in creating jobs in the overall industry…
So can you imagine in these times of food shortage that we are paying farmers to quit producing food because they produced too much? They are going broke, not because they are inefficient or that they have an inferior product. It is because they are too efficient and produced themselves out of business. The global market has failed to absorb this excellent product.
I remember the old system well. The great economists told us what to do, that globalization was the way to go. We were told to process the grain into meat. The World Market was to take care of these perishable products. What a false assumption that turned out to be.
– Eugene F. Whelan,
Amherstburg, Ont.
Response to Wells
Exactly where does the National Farmers Union stand?
It is unfortunate that NFU (president) Stewart Wells’ letter to the editor (Open Forum, May 8) focused on a personal attack. I will, in contrast, respond to the issue he discusses.
Western farmers are held captive by the Canadian Wheat Board. We must deal with it. It tells us how much of our grain it will sell and it tells us the price it will give us. Many farmers would like to be free to market their own grain, convinced they’d be better off marketing their own product.
This year, the CWB is letting organic grain farmers, but not regular wheat producers, do just that. Organic producers like Wells may get what amounts to a zero-dollar buyback from the CWB. That means they can market their own grain and have been able to take full advantage of rising market prices. Quotes for various types of organic grain have been between $12 and $25 a bushel, depending on the class.
Producers I’ve spoken to have been overwhelmingly positive about this opportunity. Unfortunately, this same benefit is not available to the 98 percent of farmers who grow regular grain. …
Farmers have been pressing Wells. They’re asking him if he’s taken advantage of the organic buyback at the same time that his farm organization opposes freedom for western Canadian farmers. For several months, Wells has not answered that question and apparently refuses to.
Since the beginning of the crop year, Wells has been silent when asked why he should get an opportunity denied other farmers. He may be basically working under a free-market system and able to take full advantage of that, while demanding the vast majority of farmers be denied the same opportunity. Why has his organization failed to speak out against the CWB’s unfair treatment of farmers?
The point that farmers are making is that Wells should not be telling others they need to be bound by the CWB system while he can get a deal on the buyback and is free to sell his grain into a premium market.
– David Anderson,
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the CWB,
Ottawa, Ont.
Food bargain
I am concerned about Rob Brown’s “Pay attention to rising cost of food.” (Comment, April 17.) His assumption that the cost of food will rise is correct. His analysis is sadly flawed.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no shortage of rice in the world. In 2007, the production, consumption and carryover is at the highest level in the past four years. These are the United States Department of Agriculture’s numbers. So what has caused the major run-up in these prices?
There are several reasons for this major increase and they apply to my wheat, barley and canola as well as rice.
The first is the cost of fuel at $120 a barrel. This increases the cost every step of the way, in every minute detail, right down to the electricity to run my computer, the paper and ink that it takes to write this letter.
The second major cause is the billions of dollars of speculative money that seemingly can whipsaw the futures market at will. This is what caused wheat to spike at $25 a bushel this winter and will sometime in the future cause wheat to fall too sharply.
Yes, people need to be able to buy bread but to suggest that wheat prices can rise so high that they cannot shows a complete lack of understanding of the economics of food production.
A bushel of wheat will make about 60 loaves of bread weighing one pound each, which will sell for $2 to $2.50 each. At last year’s wheat price of $4, I got seven cents per loaf and lost money doing it. If you double the price of wheat, I now get the princely figure of 14 cents per loaf.
The costs involved from the time the wheat leaves my farm until the bread leaves the supermarket may make it too expensive but don’t blame me and my bushel of wheat.
Incidentally, every time the price of my malt barley rises a dollar a bushel, my share of the cost of a beer goes up a penny. This sure sounds like a bargain to me.
– R. L. Gilmour,
Carrot River, Sask.
New price
A few days ago, I came across an interesting statistic among some long forgotten papers stashed away in rather crude files. Therein was a receipt from Weyburn Gulf Centre on Government Road, (dated) April 27, 1979.
For my trusty Maverick car, I paid $7.60 for 8.1 gallons of gasoline at 93.9 cents per gallon or 20.7 cents per litre. Some say the only thing constant is change.
– Norm Flaten,
Weyburn, Sask.
Efforts made
Responding to farmers’ desire for flexibility in malt barley pricing, the CWB made a fundamental shift and created the CashPlus program. Providing the option of a cash price was a significant addition to price pooling. Like the many Producer Payment Options introduced since farmers took control of the CWB, CashPlus reflects significant producer-driven change to this organization.
In light of these tremendous efforts, it is disappointing to hear the executive director of the Grain Growers of Canada accuse the CWB of “refusing to move on malt barley in any way, shape or form” in an “all-or-nothing-game.” (CWB warned to work with government on monopoly, April 24). Yet the opponents of CashPlus are unhappy simply because it stops short of creating a full open market that removes any meaningful role for the CWB.
The game is clearly “all-open-market-or-nothing,” a position that most farmers do not support. That’s the real barrier to progress.
– Larry Hill,
CWB chair,
Swift Current, Sask.
Biofuel use
There have been several articles, in recent weeks, about biofuel. Some people seem to feel that promoting biofuel reduces the amount of cereal grains that can be used as food and will exacerbate a shortage of supply.
We should remember that, until 90 or 100 years ago, the entire agriculture industry ran on biofuel, then known as horses, as indeed did much of the transport industry, both commercial and personal.
A considerable amount of agricultural land had to be devoted to growing feed for draft animals. A fair portion of this would be grass, but working horses required some grain, mostly oats. The mechanization of agriculture resulted in much more land being available for cereal crops and food-producing livestock.
Of course, this does not mean that we should ignore the effects of large scale growing of crops for biofuel. Integrated ethanol and biodiesel plants definitely have a growing place in our search for new sources of fuel but we should try and utilize non-edible resources as much as possible and also try and reduce waste, both in the production and utilization of energy resources.
Apparently, up to 60 percent of the heat produced in some coal-fired generating plants is not utilized.
Certainly, farmers are not to blame if grain prices are suddenly high enough to cover the costs of production for the first time in many years.
– C. R. Venables,
Lashburn, Sask.
Why infection?
In response to: “Cosmetic chemical bans bear watching” (WP editorial, May 1.)
The day will soon come when farmers are forced to ask themselves why weeds, insects, disease and poor yields and quality infect their fields.ÂÂ
When farmers identify the true source of their problems, it will likely not involve a man-made chemical solution. It is too bad that the primary source of ag education and information is the ag input industry.ÂÂ
As a University of Saskatchewan ag graduate, I am disgusted with my training that should have been paid for by the ag input industry.
The public does not need to be educated, accepting current production methods as the end all and be all according to science. Producers and the ag industry have everything to learn about sustainable production themselves.ÂÂ
The public should also be concerned about the trend of growing crops high in proteins, carbohydrates and oils and low in trace nutrients. Society’s real challenge is returning nutrients to the fields that were exported to urban centres.
– Garrett Osborn,
Craven, Sask.
Foreign aid
As the son of a farming family in Western Canada, I’ve been deeply disappointed by this government’s inaction on foreign aid in the face of record food prices.
While bureaucrats debate and dither and fail to explain why aid for the poorest has dropped to 0.28 percent of our national income compared to a promised level of 0.46 percent, starvation looms for many.
We must respond. Not only lives hang in the balance but also our national self respect.
– Randy Rudolph,
Calgary, Alta.
Look ahead
Journalist Gwynne Dyer describes the present world food crisis as a perfect storm. (WP, March 20.)ÂÂ
Simultaneously, we have two perfect storms: one bankrupting farmers, the other causing starvation. Whereas the term originally described a natural disaster, the present dilemmas have roots in agricultural policy.
Beginning in the 1980s, agricultural policy has been shaped in the interest of global agribusiness. By controlling the price we pay for inputs and the returns from our production, agribusiness has reaped record profits, while many farmers have had to produce with negative margins.ÂÂ
Inequities in the marketplace have a long history.
However, it is a remarkable revelation to have the powerful influence of global agricultural policy documented in a best selling book. Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma, is one such book.
As a long-in-the-tooth farmer, I have farmed through challenging times. There were usually brighter prospects for next year. Today the power of farmers to influence policy has eroded to the point that any dream of a level playing field is jaded.ÂÂ
High inputs and low prices have dealt a deathblow to many hog producers. One of my neighbours just told me he kept steers through the fall and winter. Six months feed and care were wiped out by a soft market price. …
Considering policy realities, should Canadian farmers be surprised when supply management is ridiculed and attacks on the Canadian Wheat Board have to be restrained by the judiciary?ÂÂ
“One of the weaknesses of our age is our apparent inability to distinguish our needs from our greeds.” – Don Robinson.
In the context of food supply, greed is overpowering need. Organic agriculture and farmers’ markets are hopeful trends but still in their infancy. Look ahead.
– Bill Bocock,
St. Albert, Alta.
We choose
To all you western grain farmers out there who, fully understanding the wording of the ballot about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, voted for choice in marketing your grain to the buyer of your choice. I hope you are as incensed as we are by the unsolicited flyer found in our mailbox yesterday from the Friends of the CWB.
To Terry Boehm and his cohorts we have this to say. We are farmers. We grow barley and canola, and we have no use for the CWB. We want it to stay out of our business and as independent business people we want to choose the buyer of our grain.
We are fully aware that Terry Boehm and like-minded farmers want the CWB and if that’s how they prefer to market their grain, so be it, but don’t drag the rest of us to operate our businesses your way.
We live in a democracy and not a dictatorship, and to us that means we have choices…
– David M. and Ann D. Smith,
Didsbury, Alta.
