Beyond the gate
Now is not the time for Saskatchewan producers to sit back and ignore what is going on beyond the ranch gate.
A relatively small group of producers consisting of Saskatchewan Cattle Feeders and Saskatchewan Stock Grower members believe that the Saskatchewan beef industry needs to create a new association, the Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association, that will speak with a single, united voice on any and all matters of the beef industry in this province and control the industry’s checkoff.
There are producers that believe the checkoff should remain under the Cattle Market Deduction Fund Act, in the hands of a advisory committee of producer associations, being administered by the department of agriculture and used for the good of all those that now have access to the funds…
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
Most importantly it should remain refundable. They do not support it being moved to the Agri Food Act, placed under the total control of a new association with no record to judge their decision-making abilities on, to be used for their expenses and possibly made non refundable.
There are producers that believe that the grassroots producers of this province need to have the ability to act independently of others as to lobby with a strong producer voice on issues important to them. …
If this is to be a single united voice to represent every producer in Saskatchewan, why are SSGA members being told … that the plans to form this new one-voice association will move forward… whether the SSGA membership agrees or not?
The SCFA had their vote. The full SSGA members are to get a vote on this issue before it moves forward. But ask yourself when do the large majority of non-members get a vote?
The plan is to take total control of the producers’ checkoff not the SSGA or SCFA checkoff. It’s time all producers speak up and let others know what they think of this proposed association controlling their funds.
– Doug and Colleen Gillespie,
Neville, Sask.
Stupid headline
When I saw the front page headline May 1, “Ritz in hot seat over CWB ethics,” I thought what did Ritz do, and thank goodness for the CWB saving the day. When I read the article I thought what a stupid headline. … Some important information was buried on page two.
Ritz is the minister in charge of the CWB. He is part of the CWB. For Ritz to ask for, and receive, names and phone numbers of people that conduct business with the CWB does not violate the privacy act.
If Ritz made the list public in any way, that would violate the privacy act. Ritz explained in the article that he wanted to personally talk to each individual farmer (25 farmers). He wanted to find out “what went right, what went wrong” with the experimental organic pool.
That makes sense. Ritz can find out in two days “what went right, what went wrong”. It would take 100 bureaucrats five years to gather a report and the report would only disclose what was done right and it would fabricate some reason why the experiment failed.
I certainly do not agree with Ritz in lots of areas but this is the kind of minister involvement that we should be encouraging all our ministers to do. Quit using the newspaper to play politics.
A proper unbiased headline would have read “Ritz and the CWB clash again.”
– Glenn Oliver,
Rivercourse, Alta.
New correlation
I read the recent article titled “Farmers fret over phosphate,” (WP, May 8.) Mr. Asbridge indicated that farmers are contradicting themselves by wondering why fertilizer prices could double and not noting that their commodities also doubled in price.
Mr. Asbridge, as an economist, should look at the facts prior to our present situation.
There is only a correlation made now when farmers are finally getting a justified dollar for their commodities, which, evidently, is long overdue.
However, there was no comparison made as fertilizer and fuel prices steadily increased in the past four or five years, when farm commodities either declined or stayed flat.
When we make little gains to defibrillate our industry, someone else wants a piece of it.
It is asinine comments such as Mr. Asbridge’s which hinder our industry rather than rally around it.
High commodity prices in all sectors of agriculture are necessary to sustain the industry and allow us to compete.
– John Crooymans,
Bow Island, Alta.
CWB vision
My vision of the Canadian Wheat Board is one of a powerful farmer controlled co-operative selling top quality Canadian wheat and possibly barley and oilseeds in an open market.
I am tired of studies paid for by the CWB that show that farmers do better with the single desk selling system. It just isn’t true and there are studies out there that show the exact opposite.
All I know is that for my farm, it has never happened.
If you look on the internet and check out what a Montana wheat producer gets for his northern wheat, you will find that he receives at least $1 more than his Canadian counterpart.
This is comparing apples to apples. Where is the premium?
The Brewers Association of Canada has publicly stated that they pay substantially more for malt barley to the CWB than the producers ever receive. Where is the difference?
I need to be able to sell my top quality Canadian malt barley directly to the maltster. I do not need an expensive middleman.
A myth that is out there is that the CWB gets us a better price because of their selling monopoly.
The truth is that they are just one of many sellers and I would like to let some of the other worldwide sellers handle my wheat in the same manner that I now let them handle my canola and peas.
Another myth out there is that we would have 100,000 farmers trying to sell into the United States. Wrong.
Most farmers would be very happy to let the grain companies sell their wheat and barley as they now do with canola.
Having said that I do believe that the CWB could be a very powerful grain co-operative, functioning in an open market, given their extensive experience in world markets and their talented staff and management.
I realize that they don’t have facilities but that could all be worked out and those farmers that want to make it happen will make it happen. Anything less would be uncivilized.
– Glenn Sawyer,
Acme, Alta.
Wrong end
… I see in reading an American farm paper, hidden in the back pages, that Deere & Co. chief executive officer Robert Lane was paid more than $1 million per week last year for a total annual obscenity of $52.4 million.
No wonder that green paint is so expensive. This is roughly 50 times as much as each of the CEOs of the top five oil companies in Alberta.
In a related vein, I see in reading (the) Calgary Herald, that the average farm net income, according to Stats Canada, last year, was $6,317. That’s six thousand three hundred and seventeen dollars for those who thought that might be a misprint.
Do you think maybe we are on the wrong end of the industry?
– Bill Dunki,
Cochrane, Alta.
No comment?
I read with interest The Western Producer article “Schmeiser in hot water over illegal drainage.” (WP, May 1.) I think that this is possibly the first time ever that Mr. Schmeiser has been unavailable to provide comment to the media.
I also understand Mr. Schmeiser denies digging the ditches which flooded his neighbour’s house, despite a finding by the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority that confirmed there are four illegal ditches on Schmeiser’s property.
Perhaps insects, birds or rodents are responsible. Or who knows, just maybe the wind blew the ditching equipment off of the back of an untarped truck belonging to an evil-multinational company one night as it drove by Mr. Schmeiser’s fields. It’s not like it wouldn’t be the first time, right?
– Rolf Penner,
Morris, Man.
