checkoffs opt out question?

[charliep]

Should stay out but from other aspects of my life, sometimes carrots work far better than sticks. Working to show value every day is the best way to keep refunds down.

From experience, having money puts farm organizations at the table for decisions on R&D. Don't like direction of the organization - run for a position on the B of D. Be ready to work.

[charliep]

Just curious what kind of investment (public or checkoff) is being spent on organic farming? As before, I note there is dedicated funding in the US.

[URL="http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/organicagricultureresearchandextensioninitiative.c fm"]USDA organic research funding[/URL]

[parsley]

I don't like the direction some folks are pushing for either.

Nor the "shame, shame, shame" methodology:

"Its unlikely the people that opt out of the checkoff care if there name is public because it does not seem to bother them that the rest of the farmers make the industry better and they just leach off of it."

(Yes, well, I can kind of relate to why some farmers would begin to think a leadership ability course should be mandatory...)

I'd boldly post my name if I apply. Over the years, for any checkoffs, we've never requested a refund. After all, it's been for research.

But upon adding up the checkoffs in all crops over the past year, I'm aghast! And the people scooping in, and managing the money are becoming greedier than ever.

Maybe the CWB can follow suit, (experienced as they are) and deduct a check-off from all canola growers.

After all, the CWB markets all over the world and have argued that organic growers benefitted from CWB marketing, so I'm sure they could make the same argument for a canola check-off pocketed by the CWB, claiming the CWB residually builds markets for canola growers.

Residual benefit could surely be legitimatley deemed mandatory in the eyes of communists, I'm confident.

Charleip, what was the marketing budget of the CWB last year? Do you have it handy? I downloaded their 4MB of disguise, that does not directly list "Marketing Costs for 08-09" (That's too simple for the simple, isn't it?)

I's like to know though, as we could determine a residual percentage from the total "all cwb crops" figure, and send the bill to canol growers, since we are into measuring benefits with green eyes.

Is there absolutely no decency, anymore? Pars

[wd9]

Charlie, what about the guys who just opt out regardless of how much good work is done? Or the ones that are so naive that the accountant applies for the refund without them even knowing and makes the accountant look good cuz he gets a bigger refund?

Some just take their money back and let others pay for and do the work yet enjoy the benefits of the labour and money of others.

A bit more public wouldn't hurt, at least not to those who pay for the benefits the free-loaders take.

[parsley]

I thought the Western Grain's Foundation was in Canada, charliep.

Certainly my income tax money oer the years, was made out to the Receiver General in Canada, which is probably why I am in such a pissy rage today.

And I'm sure "the idea would work to reduce free riders" is a concept a lot of ag consultants who recieve tax dollars for ag projects would be rather surprised that it was a bit of the free riders whose money they applied for. (btw, I am not in any way saying you applied for or recieived any tax money, brenda.)


Spoiled, self centred people who believe the world owes them a tax-dollar enriched living don't like to be reminded whose money it really IS. It's such an embarrassing, er, nuisance, isn't it? Pars

[parsley]

"A bit more public wouldn't hurt"

comes at an inopportune time as I write out a tax cheque, so excuse my sarcasm as I say to you:

"Did it ever occur to you that perhaps farmers cannot afford to pay for all research they now are expectwed to payfor considering farmers' net pay is almost in the toilet? (Unless statistics Canada is lying) Governments realize this... and that is why they are downloading costs.

If farmers simply don't have the money, how long will you continue to call them research cheapskates and free loaders? Or is it just your parlour game? Pars

[parsley]

On the CWB website in the 2009 annual report, here is a list of the CWB Directors who sit on other Boards:


**Canada Grains Council Board Member Ian White

**Canada Grains Council On-Farm Food Safety Committee Committee Member Jeff Nielsen

**Canadian Federation of Agriculture CWB Representative Allen Oberg

**Canadian Federation of Agriculture Grains and Oilseeds Committee CWB Representative Allen Oberg,

**Canadian International Grains Institute Board Member Henry Vos

**Western Grain Standards Committee Member, Wheat Subcommittee Kyle Korneychuk

**Western Grains Research Foundation Board Member Cam Goff

**Western Grains Research Foundation Member, Wheat Advisory Committee Bill Woods

**Western Grains Research Foundation Member, Barley Advisory Committee Kyle Korneychuk

Take a look. All of them get a cheque from the CWB itself. And then a cheque from the additional Board's they serve on.

And I am going to take a guess that there are some farmers posting on AV who sit on Boards representing other council's and associations and also get cheques to "serve".

Serve.

How are ordinary farmers' bottom lines these days? How are your "servers" working for you these days? Are you satisfied?

Are they on "self-serve"?

Should checkoff fees be generally reduced across the spectrum, and programms reduced, and committee time reduced and per diems reduced?

Or is living beyond one's means passe? Pars

[charliep]

wd9. Will stay out the debate whether should be mandatory or voluntary. Only observation is research and development is important to any business including agriculture. Having farmer money at the table gives your businesses a say in direction of activities. That includes the organic industry. The fancy stuff around biotech always seems to come to the forefront but much more is the rather mundane issues of improving agronomics/developing consumer traits via more conventional tools.

[charliep]

It would be interesting to compare what malleefarmer pays out to GRDC and from there end use levys for seed varieties to our amounts. Ianben has participated for a while but European farmers also pay for use of seed varieties (no choice) even when common seed. This is how their research is funded.

[parsley]

"The fancy stuff around biotech"

Na na na na. Wrong spraypaint charliep.

My point was about paying.

gusty put it out there that cheapskates opted out of paying checkoffs, and therefore should be made compulsory. wd assented.

I countered by saying my organic tax dollars paid for conventional ag research which is mostly biotech theses days, but I have traditionally paid and shut up. (Until now.)

My other point was this....did AV'ers ever think that maybe 'checkoff cheapskates' can't really afford to go to the bank to get another loan to fund research?

This session is NOT about organic vs biotech, but we could sure as heck drag in that duck if you'd like. LOL Pars