The Designated Area

So long single desk

2007-03-28T10:29:00.000-06:00

Well, the results are in. For anyone still stopping by this old haunt, you can find them here. The big news is that Strahl has confirmed that we will be marketing barley in and outside of the CWB starting August 1, 2007. Think I'll have a barley sandwich at lunch to celebrate.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

2007-03-02T13:10:00.000-06:00

This article has all three.

I would love to have to store oats all year round like do with wheat and barley. I'd love to export offshore instead of to the Upper Midwest, where I do have a transport advantage. Some people will say anything. Canadian oats rarely competes with oats from Australia, but if it fits with your argument why not include it, right?

I hope that anyone out there who hasn't yet voted in the plebiscite reads the article I linked to. Farmers know the smell of b.s.

Your three options: Reverse weighted?

2007-02-19T09:41:00.000-06:00

Further to my last post regarding the number of ballots sent out in the barley plebiscite, you have to wonder if the eligibility rules actually reverse weight the vote. By allocating the same vote to anyone who has produced barley in the last five years, those who produce barley year-in and year-out have the ballot weighted against them. Similarly, large producers or farms that consolidate their production under a single individual or corporation are punished. Hopefully no one has considered changing their incorporation structure simply to receive more votes in future plebiscites.

Your three options: One in 84000?

2007-02-14T11:45:00.000-06:00

I have been meaning to comment on the plebiscite itself for some time, so here goes. The three option ballot was the right way to go for reasons I mentioned here. But in issuing ballots to 84000 producers, the government abandoned some of the fundamental principles that ought to guide it in dealing with the CWB. The most important of these is that consultations should be conducted with farmers who have a continuing commercial stake in growing wheat and barley. Translation: You have to make your living as a farmer. There is simply no way that 84000 people in Western Canada make their living as farmers, considering that there are only approximately 8000 grain farms with revenues of more than $250000 according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. In the end, it is the result of the plebiscite and not who voted that will carry the most weight, but it would be a shame to have the process marred because farmers did not have their voices heard.

We report. You decide.

2007-02-13T15:22:00.000-06:00

I am going to try to post barley prices during the plebiscite period on the sidebar to the right. If they aren't 100% up to date, please do not get on my case too much; I do have other work that does not involve barley prices and it must also get done.

CWB prices are taking off the CWB website. WCE prices come from the WCE website. North Dakota prices come from here. Montana prices come from the USDA. More prices can be added. I still need to track down the Agricore United export feed barley price and others and add more deliver points. If you have any suggestions, comments are open.

Stocking up on content

2007-02-13T09:16:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure what posting frequency will be like over the next few days. Geoff and I are both headed to Calgary for the annual convention of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, which runs Wednesday night through Friday afternoon. This years convention is jointly held with the Western Barley Growers Association and should be a blast. Hopefully I pick up plenty of excellent info and anecdotes that can be posted here. The highlight should be the appearance of Chuck Strahl, Canada's agriculture minister on Friday. Consider yourselves invited to the party. See the above websites for details on agenda and registration.

Spinning dangerously out of control?

2007-02-13T08:33:00.000-06:00

The following letter ought to win an award. You've got to hand it to the CWB; they can spin with the best of them.

February 9, 2007

Letter to the Editor

It was suggested in the February 1 issues of the Manitoba Cooperator and Farmers Independent Weekly that an Ontario farmer currently selling hard red spring wheat with 13.5 per cent protein would receive $5.50 per bushel, whereas a grower on the Prairies selling 1CWRS would receive about $4.40 per bushel as a final pool return—approximately $1.10 less. The implication is that this is because of poor performance by the CWB. That implication is incorrect, because of several errors in the comparison.

To begin with, the comparison relates a spot price (the Ontario price) to a pool value (the CWB Pool Return Outlook). This is a misleading comparison. A pool value is by definition an average of prices achieved over an entire crop year. In a rising market such as we have experienced so far this crop year, a spot price is always higher than a pooled price. Is the CWB selling wheat at those “high” Ontario values and returning those dollars to farmers? Yes. In fact, CWB values are even higher, as noted below.

The Ontario farmer spot price of $5.50 per bushel is presumably a price at or near an Ontario mill. Therefore, an appropriate comparison would be the current price of CWB wheat landed at an Ontario mill. On February 5, the CWB offered eastern mills No.1 CWRS with 13.5 per cent protein for $230.47 per tonne at Thunder Bay. Add to this freight charges of $25 from Thunder Bay to the mill, and the landed price equals $255.47 per tonne or $6.95 per bushel.

The comparison, then, is between $5.50 per bushel of hard red spring wheat to the Ontario farmer and $6.95 per bushel for CWB wheat sold in Ontario. This $6.95 per bushel would be added to the pooled payments western farmers receive for wheat sold throughout the 2006-07 crop year. Because the CWB’s Ontario sales prices are based on competitive North American values, western farmers can obtain similar cash values today under the CWB’s other pricing options such as our Daily Price Contract. It appears that Ontario farmers are receiving prices that are significantly under current market values.

The truth, therefore, is the exact opposite: CWB prices are higher.

Sincerely,

Gord Flaten,
CWB Vice-President of Marketing

The entire letter rests upon the CWB's belief in its own power, that they can tell processors, millers, and bakers what the price of wheat is anywhere and everywhere. I suppose in some fantasy world perhaps, but what buyer would pay $6.95/bu to the CWB when it can apparently buy from local growers for $5.50?

The CWB's "offered" price is not the price the farmer delivers against. The farmer delivers against the PRO or against Fixed Price and Daily Price Contracts that are based on US futures prices adjusted by basis levels and CWB deductions and "adjusting factors". But if they can claim this made up price to be "the truth", then I suppose I can claim that my farm is "offering" canola for $15/bu this year, oats for $3.50/bu, and confectionary sunflowers at $0.40/lb and make the accountant and the credit union really happy.

The single desk seems to give the CWB a monopoly on one thing: crazy. I hope no one else is buying what they are selling.

All the news that's fit to print?

2007-02-12T10:27:00.000-06:00

Google News earns my disdain again today; apparently savemycwb.ca is a news site. One look confirms that it is chock full of propaganda from the NFU-left, where the 'con' in conservative stands for conspiracy.

One example, if I may:

In addition Strahl will be stuffing ballots with propaganda
The ballot envelope will be stuffed with material from anti-CWB advocates Dr. Barry Cooper from the University of Calgary and Rolf Penner from the Frontier Centre.

What is not mentioned is that Prof. Murray Fulton has the privilege of "stuffing" the ballot envelope with 'propaganda' in support of the single desk. But why would you tell the whole story when you have political objectives to achieve?

Reading these guys, you might think that Chuck Strahl is the second coming of Machiavelli. Or maybe worse, according to some of the signs at the pro-single-desk rally in Winnipeg in December. (Apologies for the bad cell-phone camera picture.)
Sadly, there is simply too much material on savemycwb.ca to rebut. It amazes me that so many are going to such incredible lengths to castigate those who would give farmers a choice in whether they market their grain through the CWB. It takes a lot of gall to suggest that choice, opportunity, and freedom are some kind of crazy conspiracy.

Monopoly or Bust?

2007-02-08T15:06:00.000-06:00

Thomas Hewson, vice-president of the Western Barley Growers Associations, raises some interesting questions to farmers who do not believe a voluntary CWB to be possible.

There is going to be increased pressure on any government to end the single-desk
marketing monopoly. The past government took the first step toward that by
agreeing to allow it on the table at World Trade Organization talks. Greater
farmer participation in value-chain relationships does not bode well for the
monopoly. A voluntary marketing agency may well have more life expectancy
than a single-desk CWB.

An excellent question. Would the die-hard supporters of the monopoly rather have a voluntary CWB, or no CWB at all? A lot of the same people who are fighting to maintain the monopoly fought to keep the Crow Rate subsidy. When the subsidy was eliminated in the early 'nineties, farmers received only a fraction of earlier, more generous, buy-out offers.

I believe that a voluntary CWB has an excellent chance at success, and is the best option for farmers in the designated area. Hopefully this vision comes to fruition before the CWB simply ceases to exist.

Can anyone read French?

2007-02-07T10:31:00.000-06:00

Last Thursday, I attended a breakfast seminar put on by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy that featured John De Pape, who spoke about the CWB and its role in marketing barley. It was a very informative and very reasoned analysis. The Frontier Centre usually puts audio or video of these things online, so as soon as it gets put up, I'll post a link and you can see it for yourselves.

At the breakfast, I sat at the same table as Gord Kurbis, Director of Corporate Policy with the CWB. He disputed the now somewhat infamous news story out of Algeria, quoting an Algerian official who said that the CWB was selling wheat to the Algerian state trading agency at a discount of tens of dollars per tonne. Mr. Kurbis said that the English translation that made its way to Canada was inaccurate. So, I dug up the Algerian article, if you are inclined to read the French. The key quote comes two-thirds of way into the first paragraph:

"Les prix de vente à l'Algérie de 400 000 à 500 000 tonnes de blé annuellement sont bien étudiés puisque ce sont des prix préférentiels. Ces derniers font gagner à l'Algérie plusieurs dizaines de dollars sur la tonne achetée."

My own French skills being what they are, I plugged the quote into an online translator. Intrigued by this, I double checked it with a friend who speaks fluent French. Translation: It is well known that the sale prices to Algeria on 400,000 to 500,000 tonnes of wheat annually are preferential prices. They save Algeria tens of dollars per purchased tonne.

I have a difficult time understanding how there could be any confusion about the meaning. I just don't know why some farmers continue to fall for the CWB party line. The CWB claims that it can price discriminate, charging different prices to different markets to maximize returns. I don't understand where undercutting our competitors by tens of dollars per tonne qualifies as maximizing returns.

UPDATE: (Feb 12, 2007) Check out this exchange between the CWB and US Wheat Associates for more info on translation-gate, or whatever we might call this misunderstanding. (Scroll down to item number three.)

Farmers without a Country

2007-02-06T15:18:00.000-06:00

Further to what I posted earlier: If cows can have SARS, then it is also possible for farmers to be without a country. Yes, apparently some farmers are less Canadian than others. I know it is old news, but the quote bears repeating:

To strip the Canadian Wheat Board of its monopoly powers and let farmers market their own grain "is as wrong as it is un-Canadian," the board's president says.

And if the quote bears repeating, I believe my own admonishment bears repeating; Agriculture is a business, not a political plaything. The Wheat Board monopoly makes it political and for that reason, we need marketing choice. A vote for choice is a vote that gives you the privilege not to have to hear speeches like this one.

Cows with SARS

2007-02-06T13:14:00.001-06:00

Textbook example of why I believe that agriculture should be treated as business, not politics.

Market signals, again

2007-02-03T13:04:00.000-06:00

Maybe this should be a recurring series of posts as well. I'll say it again, the manner in which the CWB pays farmers for grain is about the most muddled signal that farmers receive. The TV signals we got on the farm in the days before satellite were stronger.

If you have your price signal antennae up (the bunny ears, if you will) you may have noticed that the board put out its initial payments for feed barley. This value represents the money farmers would receive up front for feed barley delivered into the board. The price they posted was $110.50 per tonne or $2.41 per bushel. The signal to the farmer: we really don't want your grain. If our lowball PRO price wasn't enough of a signal, the initial payment should be. In this case, we are lucky that we don't have to use the board. In the case of other grains, we are not so lucky.

There is a definite cost to the payment system used by the CWB and it means that the prices quoted in the Pool Return Outlook are higher than the farmer can expect to receive. The reason is that the farmer bears the interest cost, the cost of financing the foregone cash, for grain that he has delivered but not yet paid for. Waiting sixteen months to receive final payments from the CWB is a cost to farmers.

Your three options: A continuing series

2007-02-02T10:04:00.000-06:00

I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

So reads the second option of the upcoming barley plebiscite. The CWB calls it intellectually dishonest. Any editorial in favour of the single desk suggests that it should be struck from the ballot because a dual market cannot exist. A dual market is simply a rhetorical device that is right-wing conspiracy code for the destruction of the CWB. Sounds pretty scary.

It made me wonder: What has happened when other government agencies have transitioned from single desk powers to independent competitors in an open market? Did they fold like a cheap lawn chair?

The single desk for pork marketing was removed in the mid 1990's, but Manitoba Pork Marketing still has a website, so I thought I would check it out. The history page is really interesting:

Changes to the Natural Products Marketing Act resulted in the end of the single-desk status, effective July 1, 1996. Today, Manitoba Pork Marketing is a member-owned co-operative, governed by an elected board of directors that are hog producers.Manitoba Pork Marketing continues to be the marketer of choice for the majority of Manitoba's independent hog producers.
Manitoba Pork Marketing is the provinces premier marketing agency.
Working on behalf of approximately 900 producer members that produce 1.5 million hogs annually, we represent the single largest volume of hogs in the province.

"The marketer of choice." They are operating in a dual market and by their own admission, they are not only surviving, but thriving. It makes you wonder what the CWB is afraid of.

A picture says a thousand words...

2007-01-31T12:43:00.000-06:00

This picture was taken from a Regina Leader-Post article. I find the things that protestors put on signs very interesting, the second one from the left especially; "Young farmers want a future, Save the CWB!" This is somewhat ironic, considering that none of the people in the photo appear to be under the age of fifty.

I can't see many young farmers staying on the farm because a government agency will market their wheat and barley for them. My own intuition suggests the opposite is true; As a young farmer, I want the expanded opportunity and greater choice in how my business is run.

The comments are open, so let us know what you think. Geoff and I are both farmers, both under 25, and we do not think that the future of young farmers requires a CWB monopoly. Does support for marketing choice run along age lines?

Cold hard facts

2007-01-30T14:00:00.000-06:00

This morning I wrote about appealing to emotion. This afternoon, it's all numbers.

The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange has announced that it is ready to provide international risk management tools for barley should the single desk be removed. In preparation, it is posting weekly international prices for feed and malt barley on its website. There is also market commentary provided by Informa Economics regarding the feed barley market on the WCE site.

The report seems to confirm some of my thoughts from the weekend:

Obviously, the lack of export movement from the CWB is having an impact on feed barley values in some regions of the prairies. Granted the Pool is based on an average of sales over the last six months of the crop year. However, since there are likely very few sales against that Pool yet, it is puzzling as to why the PRO is not more competitive than it is. The fact that feed barley is not being exported out of Saskatchewan does appear to be limiting non-board bids at this time.

And it's not only a couple of sales to Japan:

At the time that this article was written, Middle Eastern buyers were paying as much as US$246 per tonne for feed barley on a CIF basis. It would likely take about US$45 per tonne to ship barley from Canada to the Middle East, leaving the price at about US$200 per tonne at the St. Lawrence or Vancouver. Using a Canadian dollar of 86.5, that converts to about C$231 per tonne. If we assume about $16 per tonne for cleaning and elevation, feed barley would be worth about C$215 per tonne, in store Vancouver or the St. Lawrence.

Under our current system, this is a revelation. In a marketing choice environment, it's just business.

This promises to be emotional

2007-01-30T10:46:00.000-06:00

For your reading pleasure, there are two oped pieces in today's Winnipeg Free Press. (here and here) One promotes market choice, the other promotes the single-desk.

One line in the first piece caught my eye. It serves as a lense through which both articles and the entire debate can be viewed: "Any and all changes in Canadian agriculture -- in particular the CWB -- involve politics and emotion."

Since so many of the arguments in the debate, including many of my own, appeal to emotion, I think it important to look at the emotional tone in each article. Jeff Nielsen talks about opportunity and cooperation; optimist that he is, he talks about his excitement at being given the chance to market his own barley. Allan Dawson talks about how proponents of market choice are trying the mislead farmers; he tries to inspire fear at the thought of a competitive market.

In a debate, both sides use disparagement. The CWB debate is no exception. But I have yet to hear an optimistic version of the future that includes a single-desk for the CWB. It is awfully tough to get excited at the prospect of surrendering the marketing of my grain in perpetuity to the single desk.

The word of the day is: "competitive"

2007-01-29T13:12:00.000-06:00

I won't bore you with a definition, but I will use it in a sentence, care of ABB Grain, the former Australian Barley Board:

ABB Grain has closed the No.1 malting and No.1 feed barley pools in South Australia at close of business today - but will immediately open No.2 malting and feed pools.

The No. 1 pools have been closed to protect the equity of the growers that supported these pools and benefited from strong prices through the harvest period. The pools have been kept open until now to provide growers ample opportunity to deliver. Opening No. 2 pools will continue to give growers that have not already delivered into the pools the ability to do so.

ABB’s managing director, Michael Iwaniw, said despite the difficult season, the pools had been able to be competitive in a very tight market.

“ABB has been effective in a season with unusually strong domestic activity by staying focused on generating the best result for growers. We look forward to continuing to do this in the looming deregulated barley market,” Mr Iwaniw said.

He said that with less grain to export, ABB had used its marketing expertise to maximise returns for pool growers and will continue to do so.

“Flexibility within ABB’s marketing programme has allowed ABB to respond to rapidly changing market conditions,” Mr Iwaniw said.

“This has enabled us to reflect competitive prices - by tapping into the domestic market and prioritising international sales to key premium markets.

“We’re beginning to see signs of the domestic market softening, which suggests local buyers have satisfied their demand, in the short term at least, which is another factor taken into consideration in closing the No. 1 pools.”

The current gross pool indicator prices for the pools which closed today were: Malting barley No. 1 (South Australia) $338/t, Feed barley No. 1 (South Australia) $246/t. These prices are unchanged from the last pool update issued by ABB Grain on January 17.

Mr Iwaniw said the new No.2 pools currently have indicative prices of $333-$338/t for malting barley and $229/t for feed barley.

“We will continue to provide competitive pool options with the intention of maximising grower returns,” he said.

The release can be found here. Incredible things happen when grain companies must compete for farmers grain. No talk about "scary multinationals" or "pitting farmer against farmer"; instead, "generating the best result for growers" so that both sides benefit from the transaction.

Some people just get it

2007-01-28T16:56:00.000-06:00

A good summary of the latest CWB shenanigans can be found over at smalldeadanimals. It is nice to see non-farmers who understand the fundamental premises behind farmers opposition to the single desk. (And are willing to send traffic our way, thanks, Kate!)

That said, I don't think Kate is voting in the upcoming plebiscite. It is up to farmers to move marketing choice forward, so if you can vote, vote early and vote for choice.

When will market signals reach us?

2007-01-26T18:12:00.000-06:00

Today's big news surrounding barley is not about anything the CWB has done. Really. It's about what the CWB refuses to do.

Agricore United has begun posting an international feed barley price, representing what the company would pay farmers in a marketing choice environment. The price was posted at C$233.70/tonne, basis Vancouver. The board's latest Pool Return Outlook for the B Pool on feed barley gives a price of $190/tonne, also basis Vancouver. The Board acknowledges that the higher price is out there, but refuses to offer it to farmers.

Now, the Board can't use the excuse that it had made lower priced sales earlier in the year - there are two pooling periods for feed barley, with the B Pool running from February 1 to July 31. It can't say that the bottom is likely to fall out of the feed market. According to the CWB's PRO announcement from Thursday, "Global feed grain prices are expected to receive support from the U.S. corn market well into 2007, with U.S. corn ending stocks expected to be at the lowest level since 1995-96." If that is the case, why the huge disparity between sales that can be made now, today, at this moment, and the price it says it can deliver to farmers? Why not attract grain to the B Pool to meet this demand? A cynic might say that the Board just wants to make sure that its feed price stays below its malt price. The Board does not want to admit that it hasn't done the best job of marketing farmers barley. But we already know that; the evidence is plain as day.

The board has cultivated its image as a protector of Canadian farmers. If this is protection, being 'sheltered' from high prices, then count me out.

Profitability and Board Grains

2007-01-26T15:36:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, our farm completed analysis on the projected profitability of crops for the 2007 crop year. Not surprisingly, canola provided the highest return at almost $200/acre. Also, not surprisingly, barley and HRSW provided the lowest gross margain, almost $100/acre lower than canola. ($114 and $109 for HRSW and malt barley, respectively)

When I see the $20-40 extra an acre in returns that are stolen from our bottom line, the true benefit to "orderly marketing" is quickly revealed.

Me thinks there is something rotten within "The Designated Area".

Debunking junk economics

2007-01-25T20:10:00.000-06:00

Just recently, the CWB released a study it had commissioned at the farmer's expense to look at its own economic impacts. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the international consultancy, performed the analysis. Not surprisingly, it found that the CWB had major impacts, generating $1.6 billion in economic activity and "creating" over 14000 jobs. This seemed ludicrous. Then I looked at the study. I saw that they took the value of "premiums" earned by the CWB straight out of other CWB commissioned studies by Andy Schmitz, Richard Gray, and the like and treated these mythological premiums as having a direct, tangible impact on the Canadian economy. Sounds fishy. But the study also treated all CWB expenditures as having economic impacts. I always thought that farmers funded those expenditures, not the CWB. Those expenditures would exist with or without the board in place, so attributing them to the CWB seemed incredibly arbitrary.

To assure you that this idea isn't totally crazy, I refer you to Tyler Cowen, professor of economics at George Mason University and author of the popular econ weblog Marginal Revolution. This was posted under the heading, "Don't Trust Economic Impact Studies." It refers to impact of the arts but it applies to studying the economic impact of any organization and it is crucial to any critical look at the study released by the CWB. (Emphasis is mine.)

We should be skeptical of “economic impact” studies that show the importance of the arts to a community. A study of this kind might show that an arts festival or new arts arena brings millions of dollars in economic value. But these studies typically treat arts expenditures as creating value out of nothing. Implicitly it is assumed that if the money had not been spent on the arts, no other economic or social values would have been produced. Again, the relevant comparison is whether an arts arena leads to more value than some alternative. When we look at economic impact studies for one industry at a time, they all appear to show high benefits. But this means that the net benefits of any single project are low, zero, or perhaps even negative on average. By investing in one good idea we are always forsaking another good idea. In essence these studies list gross benefits rather than net benefits.

Indeed, the relevant comparison in the case of the CWB would be the impact of marketing expenditures in a competitive market. It is a comparison that can't be made.

It is the height of arrogance to think that the gross benefits of Western Canadian wheat and barley marketing are the result of the existence of the CWB. The only conclusion you can take away from the CWB's Impact Study is this: the CWB has such a lack of respect for farmers that it believes that they couldn't generate a single dollar of economic activity in its absence.

Keeping it real

2007-01-25T10:24:00.000-06:00

I did inadvertantly mention this yesterday, but I didn't link to it. Also the article I posted referred to it as 'barelyvote.ca'. I'm thinking, "don't barely vote, don't hardly vote, rather vote decisively, vote passionately, and vote often."

To set the record straight, the site is www.barleyvote.ca. It is chock full of information on barley marketing and how you can get involved in bringing about a voluntary CWB, so check it out yourself. The group behind it is the Market Choice Alliance, or as I've heard them called, "The Real-er Voice for Choice". Because let's face it, a pro-monopoly group calling itself the Real Voice for Choice is like a Saskatchewan Roughrider fan wearing blue and gold.

Putting the "east" in Easter

2007-01-24T17:46:00.001-06:00

Combing Google News this evening and what do I come across - a Liberal Party of Canada press release. I am not sure what bugs me more; the fact that Google considers Liberal Party press releases to be 'news' or that Wayne Easter, PEI native, Liberal MP, and former NFU president, has decided to open his mouth with regard to the CWB plebiscite issue.

Here are some of the things that Wayne Easter had to say:

Chuck Strahl still doesn't understand what study after study, including his own discredited task force on undermining the wheat board, have said - namely that there is no such thing as dual marketing. It is either the open market or single desk!

This puzzles me. It puzzles me because I am pretty sure that Ontario lies somewhere between PEI and Western Canada. I would think that Wayne Easter, sitting in PEI, could see that Ontario has a marketing board for wheat that operates on a voluntary basis, a 'dual market' if you will.

The release also comments on who should be voting in the plebiscite:

The Minister must respect the fact that permit book holders should be those eligible to vote.

Wayne, you so crazy! You expect me to believe that our farm which grows ten of thousands of bushels of board grains while holding a single permit book should receive the same vote as the retired farmer who hasn't delivered a bushel in years? Or worse yet, the same vote as the estate of someone who owns a quarter section? Yes, it appears that Wayne Easter believes that bonafide farmers should have the same vote as dead people.

In opposition, let me put forward the simple idea that growing barley, not holding a book, should be the eligibility criterion.

Finally, this nugget:

This Minister has a track record of using threats, tampering with voter lists, and firing CWB officials who have defended the CWB from the Conservatives' attempts to destroy it to fit their ideological agenda. Western grain producers deserve better.

Wow. Partisanship, thy name is Wayne Easter. If ever an 'ideological agenda' existed, it belongs to single-desk supporters such as Mr. Easter. It takes a great degree of confidence in the ideology of collective marketing to suggest that all farmers be forced to market collectively. It takes even more gall to suggest that only farmers in another area, not a single one represented in parliament by Wayne Easter, be the ones forced into a system of collective marketing. If only I could move my farm to PEI the same way Wayne Easter moves his ideology west.

The revolution will be blogged

2007-01-24T12:35:00.000-06:00

Via smalldeadanimals comes news that David Anderson, Saskatchewan MP and longtime advocate of marketing freedom, has started a blog of his own. The blog has been around since the 15th of January, so I guess I'm late to party, but better late than never right?

His most recent post is a fun time-waster. Guess who owns the web domain www.marketingchoice.ca?

Plebiscite question: Let the hysteria begin

2007-01-24T10:15:00.000-06:00

Not to go all smalldeadanimals on you, but I'm on a blogging roll this morning. I do need to get back to work, but I'll leave you with this article from the Winnipeg Free Press today. The anti-choice crowd is out in full force, suggesting that the option of a voluntary CWB is absurd.

Not surprisingly, the National Farmers Union is front and centre:

Stewart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union, is an outspoken critic of what he sees as Strahl's attempts to dismantle the board.
"I wonder why they stopped at three questions (on the barley plebiscite)," Wells said. "They may as well have asked if farmers would like to sell their barley to little green men from Mars for $200 a bushel."
Wells believes that would be just as valid as the second statement on the plebiscite that reads, "I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian What Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer."

It amazes me that our mainstream media continue to give credence to these kinds of smear tactics while at the same time casting aspersion on those who support choice. The final paragraph of the article is a real doozy:

Ballots will be mailed out to barley producers by the end of the month, but the campaign to influence producers has already started. A slick website called www.barelyvote.ca is sponsored by something called the Market Choice Alliance.

Ok, "a slick website", "something called the Market Choice Alliance"; yep we must be "scary conservatives" with a "hidden agenda". This type of reporting makes me sick. It abandons any pretense of objectivity. I still hold out hope that the barley campaign will be a reasoned and reasonable debate about what is best for barley farmers, but if this is the way the media chooses to cover the issue, it seems unlikely.

Say it like you mean it

2007-01-24T09:36:00.000-06:00

I just got word of an event that some people might be interested in. The title was what grabbed me: "Show me the money!" As in: If the CWB is improving the bottom line on my farm, show me the money!

It baffles me at times that some farmers are so trusting of the CWB that they forget to ask where the benefits are. Even farmers I know who aren't passionately for or against the single-desk can acknowledge that if the monopoly powers of the board were taken away that the price they receive for their wheat wouldn't suddenly decline.

I am not a 'shout-it-from-every-rooftop' kind of guy. I am not going to quote entire scenes from the movie Jerry Maguire, but I am going ask and I hope everyone else does the same: CWB - Show me the money.

Opening salvo

2007-01-23T20:53:00.000-06:00

As a wheat farmer, the last six months have been incredibly frustrating. Commodity prices moved higher, wheat was the one crop on our farm that had decent yields, and yet here we sit, our bins full of wheat and no cash in my pocket to show for it. What did farmers talk about instead of marketing wheat? They talked politics. They talked about whether a government-created marketing board should have the privilege of marketing our grain. They talked, as they have for years, about the Canadian Wheat Board.

I hope you can hear the frustration in my voice. I hope you can understand how ennervating it is to be mired in debate when dollars are slipping through our fingers. The title of this blog, 'The Designated Area', is borne out of this frustration. I hope it reminds us of the arbitrary and unfair manner in which the Canadian wheat and barley business is regulated. Hopefully you all stay tuned for more reaction and comment, criticism and praise, that comes straight out of the designate area.