IMPORTANT PIECE MISSING
In the Aug. 8 issue of The Western Producer, Kevin Hursh’s commentary focuses on input costs, and well he should. Cost competitiveness determines farmers’ ability to compete in the marketplace, and it determines a farmer’s profit.
While there are certain tools farmers can use to maximize the price they get for their product, basically the market price is the world price is the market price. After that, the last line of defence is reducing input costs.
I would rather save $50 on the price of inputs than try to get that same $50 from the market. In spring, after planting is done, farmers are at their most vulnerable to weather, market collapse and other potential problems. By saving on input costs, that vulnerability decreases for every dollar saved.
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?
And then Hursh comes to the crux of the matter: farmers working together. He is absolutely right. However, there is an organization that has done more than anyone else doing exactly what he seems to recommend.
I speak, of course, of Farmers of North America, the national farmers’ business alliance that started in Sask-atchewan and with farmer empowerment and improving farm profitability deeply embedded in the spirit of its operations, has been very effective for farmers across Canada.
With the strength of 10,000 members behind it, FNA is able to provide value to every farmer, just the way Kevin suggests.
FNA is a farmers’ business alliance that creates a crosswalk between its members and input supply partners and that survives on farmer membership money to develop programs and to negotiate better prices for its members.
As this alliance grows, whether it’s negotiating pesticide and fertilizer prices far below the market price, developing an accounts receivable insurance project, or even facilitating farmer owned fertilizer manufacturing, the sky is the limit.
Peter Archer,
Campbellford, Ont.
CANOLA BIODIESEL GOOD
In response to The Western Producer editorial “Winding down gov’t biofuel support right thing to do” (published Aug. 8).
Contrary to the impression left by the article, Canadian agriculture, as represented by the oilseeds and grains sector, has and continues to support the production of cleaner burning renewable fuels in this country.
Although direct monetary support from the government is being withdrawn, support for biodiesel mandates continues and production of feedstocks keeps growing to supply both domestic and export biofuel markets.
While government programs did not achieve the farmer-driven biodiesel infrastructure build-out outcomes that were intended, as the editorial rightly notes, Canada’s canola producers continue to advocate for the increased use of biodiesel in Canada via renewable fuel mandates.
Modest and reasoned renewable diesel mandates are a favourable approach as it allows the broader commercial marketplace to mobilize and respond to satisfy the demand.
From 2009 to 2012 we have seen an increase in support for biofuels as renewable diesel standards have been enacted federally, provincially across the four western provinces, and possibly in Ontario in spring 2014.
New canola biodiesel plants are currently under construction and soon to be commissioned in Alberta, adding 330 million litres of annual biodiesel capacity and extending production capacity beyond the current biodiesel de-mand requirements of the western provincial mandates.
The Canadian canola industry has a strategy to sustainably increase production to 15 million tonnes by 2015, some of which is allocated to increased domestic biodiesel production.
The Canadian Canola Growers Association and other groups continue to advocate for growth of investment in biodiesel processing and increased use.
Canola biodiesel is good for our environment, good for our farms and good for our economy. When compared on a life cycle basis, canola biodiesel creates 93 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional diesel.
Modest renewable diesel mandates that employ domestic feedstocks support our country’s broader environmental, social and economic goals.
Rick White, general manager
Canadian Canola Growers Association,
Winnipeg, Man.
A FEW QUESTIONS
With the first year anniversary of so-called marketing freedom under their belt, (federal agriculture minister) Gerry Ritz and the rest of the grain trade are all smiles, or should one say they are gloating over their good fortune.
For sure, the major grain companies have the producers of grain right where they want them.
But perhaps Ritz will answer a few questions on how things are shaping up for farmers and their new marketing freedom.
- Is it true, Mr. Ritz, when the farmer has unloaded his grain at the elevator (terminal), his ownership of that grain has vanished?
- Terminal blending of grain, as was done in the days of the Canadian Wheat Board, produced monetary benefits in the multimillions for the farmer. Are those blending profits still part of the farmer’s income under marketing freedom?
- Wheat and barley price premiums — Economists (Daryl) Kraft, (Hartley) Furtan, (Ed) Tyrchniewicz, (Andrew) Schmitz, (Richard) Gray and (Gary) Storey have all shown the CWB earned an average total wheat and barley premiums of $300 to $500 million per annum for the producers of the grain. My question to you, Mr. Ritz, is this: Are those premium dollars still accruing to the farmers under this new marketing freedom? Please tell us, Mr. Ritz; we need to know.
- Interest earnings, terminal rebates, penalties, tendering and despatch brought to the farmers over $100 million annually. Tell me, Mr. Ritz, what is the farmer’s yearly benefit from those earnings now that he has marketing freedom?
- Farmers and producer cars — what happened? What level of service has slipped from the farmers’ hands in this first year of market freedom?
Lest anyone believes I have padded the numbers when the CWB ruled the roost, think again. According to a 2007 study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the CWB generates an estimated economic impact of $1.6 billion per year. What I have done is seriously understated the economic benefit the farmers have lost with market freedom.
Henry Neufeld,
Waldeck, Sask.
THANKS, MR. RITZ
I would personally like to thank (federal) agriculture minister Gerry Ritz for the market freedom that we now have for all of our grains and oilseeds. Last harvest, we sold No. 2 CWRS, 13 percent (protein), right off of the combine for $9 per bushel and received immediate payment of the full amount. We continued to market our wheat at various prices, ending up with $8 per bu.
At the same time as this, we entered an Early Pool Delivery Contract with the CWB to allow them the chance to market some of our wheat, even though it takes a year and a half to get all of your money.
We were expecting the CWB to be at a respectable $8.50 per bu. for their final price, given what we had marketed our wheat for.
We were surprised to receive $7.50 per bu. and naturally the CWB had many reasons why they didn’t perform. Where is the CWB premium in this?
Once again, thank you, Gerry Ritz.
Glenn Sawyer,
Acme, Alta.
