CEO help?
Viterra and (federal agriculture minister Gerry) Ritz sharing a pillow?
Recently the CEO of Viterra waltzed into the cage match between farmers and the federal government and chose to stand in the government’s corner. The CEO stated that his company “can become a more efficient shipper if the Canadian Wheat Board loses its monopoly on wheat and barley” and
“Viterra could develop a more direct relationship with the railways that ship grain from the Prairies to export ports when the monopoly ends.”
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?
I wonder what sort of relationship Viterra thinks it can develop in the future since it has failed to develop the ideal relationship with the railways with canola, flax, peas and oats now. These commodities are not under the monopoly of the CWB yet Viterra is consistently late in taking these contracts in from farmers and in many cases, well past the agreed upon dates. Viterra’s latest claim is about as lame as the one where moving to 100 car blocks would provide efficiencies to the industry and producers. Why is it then the handling fees at the elevators keep going up with all this efficiency?
It’s even more curious to me as to why Viterra would stick its nose into the debate in the first place. Is it because the minister is calling in markers from all those that are pushing him to eliminate the CWB? Is he saying: “if you want it gone, you’re going to have to speak out and help me out?”
The CWB with its farmer elected board of directors gives us some say and control in our industry. Are we to believe that without them, the CEOs of the grain companies will look after our interests? Not bloody likely.
– George E. Hickie,
Waldron, Sask.
Delivery over price
It’s not all about price.
I guess I wasn’t very clear in my letter (Open Forum, June 5) about why maltsters support an open market in barley.
According to their letters to The Western Producer, both Lucien Cote (Cheap barley, July 10) and Bernie Von Tettenborn (Malt companies, July 17) think it’s all about price and that I’ve missed this important point.
Price means very little if the barley isn’t being delivered. Destroying a good customer relationship with a brewer is far worse for a maltster than paying farmers more for their barley. They would gladly pay what it takes to get on-time delivery.
If a maltster fails to deliver malt to a brewery as ordered, the brewery is at risk of failing to deliver to one or more of its customers, and so on up the chain. The last thing Labatts wants is for loyal customers to try Molsons because they couldn’t get a Labatts. That’s how market share is lost.
It is critical to have a consistent flow of barley to the maltster to make sure the value chain doesn’t jump off its sprockets. Squeezing farmers to make an extra nickel just doesn’t compare to losing a couple of points of market share.
As for price, over the last eight years, Montana farmers were paid on average more than 80 cents a bushel more for their malt barley than you were for yours. Seems like the maltsters up here are getting a pretty good deal, price-wise. If price is so important, it’s odd that they’d want to change the system, don’t you think? For the maltster, it’s not about price. It’s very much about the CWB system’s inability to ensure that consistent flow of barley.
As farmers, think of how you would react if the fertilizer you ordered didn’t arrive in time for seeding. I’m guessing that if it happened enough, you’d look for a better system, even if it cost you a bit more.
– John De Pape,
Winnipeg, Man.
Who was polled?
The Canadian Wheat Board monopoly is incompetent by its own admission – the only business in the world that has ever pleaded incompetence to retain its position.
Now we find the CWB is also incompetent in its polling. The latest CWB monopoly poll: 52 percent of barley growers want out of the CWB monopoly; 66 percent of wheat growers want to retain CWB monopoly.
How many farmers were polled who don’t have CWB permit book? The most positive and progressive farmers were not polled. The farmers who believe in freedom and competition were not polled because they did not have a CWB permit book. If the poll had included farmers who believe in freedom and competition, the results would have been much different.
Barley growers would have been 80 percent plus for freedom and competition and no CWB monopoly. Spring wheat and durum producers would have been no better than 40 percent support for CWB monopoly. …
It is time for the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta to show some leadership and withdraw from the CWB monopoly designated area. Farmers in Western Canada should have the same freedom as farmers in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.
The governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta approve incentives for business investment in the millions every year. An investment in freedom and competition, a voluntary CWB, guaranteed to pay big dividends.
Saskatchewan and Alberta are two- thirds of the designated area and have both given their vocal support for a voluntary and competitive CWB. Two- thirds vote or support for any initiative will carry. If need be, challenge it in the courts. Let’s see if the courts believe in competition and freedom….
Steve Gorst, president of Canada Malt, and Phil De Kemp, executive director of the Malt Industry Association of Canada, have both emphatically stated they will not invest in Western Canada as long as the CWB monopoly is in place.
There are over 30 new malt plants under construction in 21 countries, but none for Canada. The CWB monopoly and the National Farmers Union are the only support for this western Canada fiasco.
Wall, government of Saskatchewan, and Stelmach, government of Alberta, must initiate action immediately and withdraw from the monopoly area.
– Art Mainil,
Benson, Sask.
Milk for health
Prime minister (Stephen) Harper will walk on CWB supporters (WP June 26.) So what is new about being walked on by governments?
The barley plebiscite offered an alternative (dual market) that does not exist. Tax freedom day has just passed, government hoof prints are gone from wallets for another year. Rail line abandonments continue. Will the railroads be asked to pay for the environmental costs?
Among the most unfortunate to suffer from governmental policy are infants that are not breastfed. The University of McGill declared in a study that the use of infant formula was associated with a decreased IQ. Since this difference occurs, there is an evolutionary process to produce breast milk that will produce a higher IQ in children.
Smarter children are more likely to survive and reproduce. Milk has evolved to produce better bones, hearts and all other body parts. The milk from other mammals will have undergone similar evolution to produce sounder offspring. Prime minister Harper’s government has denied an Access to Information request for the safety assessment in the interim marketing authority mentioned below.

Health Canada has received a submission to permit the optional addition of folic acid to goat’s milk to bring the level up that (is) found naturally in cow’s milk. Goat’s milk is deficient in folic acid, having only about one-tenth of the level of folic acid found in cow’s milk.
Provision exists in the food and drug regulations for the addition of folic acid to evaporated goat’s milk at a higher level consistent with its potential use as an infant formula.
Health Canada has completed a safety assessment of the new proposal to add folic acid to goat’s milk and considers this request to be in the public interest. This document can be seen on Health Canada’s website. …
Goat milk makes bones, muscle, lungs, stomachs and brains for young goats. Humans have similar parts. …
Harper’s government requires industry to prove to the government that a product is safe for use. Goat milk has taken 20,000 infants from hell and changed them into 20,000 infants from heaven. This is science at its best.
– Clark Lysne,
Wetaskiwin, Alta.
Easy money boys
Reference is made to the June 12 article in The Western Producer titled “Farmers brace for change.”
After a lifetime of farming in the free market system or open market system, whatever you call it, I can tell you for sure if I had $15 million of quota as young Ben Loewith has now and I could sell it, that quota would be gone in a heartbeat.
I believe the indecision by the federal government to do away with supply management hinges on how they can appease Quebec. When they can figure that one out, … the rest of the supply managed system is just so much flotsam on the sea. They know we are an organizationally fragmented lot at best, plus our votes are nothing.
It is amusing how these supply managed farmers who have made money for many years have lost touch with reality. Farmer Philip Armstrong says the only strategy for survival is to continue to expand and invest and improve efficiency.
Did he ever think after he has done all this what is going to happen if he doesn’t get paid for his produce? Have these easy money boys not looked at what happened to the Canadian grain industry over these last years?
Does he think we have not tried to get more efficient? What could the Philip Armstrongs and the Ben Loewiths of Canada tell the beef industry to do now? We need a good sermon on efficiency.
As for compensating the ones who will lose their livelihoods because of the demise of supply management, that’s a joke. The federal government does not care about agriculture.
By the way, has anyone ever seen someone in any of the supply managed sectors, ever in all the years they have been going, offer a poor old grain farmer something close to his cost of production for a bushel of grain? Not on your life have they.
So maybe if the federal Conservative government can get Quebec’s supply managed sector satisfied, Canada’s supply managed farmers will get a chance to show the rest of us dim-witted farmers how to get efficient and survive without getting paid. Stats Canada will convey the message to us at 11 p.m. Sunday night.
– Donald E. Peterson,
Rose Prairie, B.C.
Grain not culprit
This week it was reported in the media that Tyson Foods had a very substantial decrease in profit margin. Tyson’s explanation was the grain prices are too high.
I completely disagree with that assessment.
A couple of cases in point: a farmer’s share in the price of a loaf of bread equates to 17 cents based on Canadian Wheat Board pool return outlooks for 13.5 percent hard wheat.
Also, two-thirds of U.S. farmers priced their grain last fall at the low end, the $5 to $7 per bushel range. In effect, Tyson is still dealing with relatively substantial quantities of cheap grain.
What is driving costs up are higher oil prices, higher utility costs and higher transportation costs. The largest factor behind this is rampant speculation in commodities as traders seek exorbitant returns.
Additionally, maybe Tyson Foods is not gouging the farm producer or consumer in the marketplace to the extent that other food conglomerates are. That would be a change.
The manipulation of the marketplace by mega-global companies such as within oil, fertilizer and ag-industrial sectors, in combination with the lack of any real competition, has created unreasonably huge windfalls of profit for these companies.
I do offer a solution for Tyson Foods to improve their profit picture. Blackmail the United States and various state governments with threatened plant closures. That seemed to have worked well in the past with our federal and Alberta governments.
Amazing results transpired to the bottom line of Tyson and Cargill, even as the beef industry underwent a major crisis. …
There is no way grain producers accept Tyson Foods’ explanation by equating their economic performance with high grain prices. There are different factors that account for Tyson’s economic downturn; factors that Tyson won’t make public.
– Merv Craddock
Purple Springs, Alta.
Not second class
Why in Saskatchewan do we continue to compete unfairly with Alberta? Are we second-class citizens compared to our neighbours to the West?
Why does our government continue to drag its feet when it comes to programs to assist our agricultural producers?
It doesn’t seem to matter if it was our former government or this one. What we ask for seems to fall on deaf ears. Has anyone ever compared Alberta’s crop insurance to ours? It is a big difference in both coverage and premiums.
When BSE hit, Alberta cattle producers were compensated for the loss of equity in their cow herd. We were not. This alone is one of the main reasons we have to ask our government for parity with Alberta.
We cannot continue to operate at a sub par level with our closest neighbours. Now we have Albertans coming in and being allowed to buy land without having the former prerequisite that you have to live here. Good news for the guys that want to retire but bad news if you live here and are trying to make a living on over-inflated land.
When it comes to our cattle herd, we are no small potatoes. We have the second largest cow herd in the country and yet we seem to be ignored. Our cattle feeders are forced to compete with feedlots who are being helped with a 12 cent a pound payment for every pound produced. How fair is that? …
We have producers lining up in droves to get rid of their cow herds. We have hay and grass and marginal land, which was perfectly suited to cattle production, being switched to grain production.
I know because I am one of them. My land is not suited to efficiently grow grain because of the sloughs, hills and rocks but I am forced to do it to survive….
No, I am not the only one who is forced to do this. Everybody I know is taking any land that can grow a crop and taking it out of hay and pasture land. We spent billions of dollars putting this land into grass and now, because of our government’s refusal to listen to our producer groups, … we are having to throw this all away.
We know that our government has a huge surplus because of oil and gas revenues. It might be wise to invest some of it in our agricultural sector before it is too late.
Our Alberta neighbours’ government saw the need and reacted to it. It might have ruffled a few feathers, however their livestock industry will emerge from this relatively unscathed.
Ours, on the other hand, will be full of unused hog bars, empty feedlots and sub par grain crops grown on pastures that used to support the second largest cow herd in Canada.
– Leon Stang
Cactus Lake, Sask.
