my corrections added in bold:
A grain industry consultant and former vice-president of Informa Economics says the Canadian Wheat Board’s director elections are lacking in meaningful debate.
John De Pape, a former trader at the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange and grain trader with Cargill, is posting a blog called the CWB Monitor, with the intent to bring important grain marketing issues to the forefront of the campaign.
De Pape has criticized the CWB for aspects of its grain marketing operations in the past.
In a Nov. 17 commentary posted on his blog, De Pape took aim at single desk candidates in the election, suggesting they have had nothing to say about real marketing issues.
<b>...took aim at some candidates</b>
“Not one single-desk supporting candidate has ventured a public comment about the durum wheat fiasco we are facing right now,” De Pape wrote.
“None talk about feed barley exports and how the CWB program is costing all farmers. And none address the problems with feed wheat pricing.”
In his blog, De Pape said the lack of meaningful debate has reduced the CWB election to a polarized ideological exercise where wheat board proponents steadfastly support the board’s single desk marketing powers and wheat board opponents lobby for its demise.
<b>That would be incorrect. I said that's what used to happen. This year is different as the single desk supporters only talk about "what if" we lose the single desk while other candidates are running on real issues that need solutions right now. They are arguing past each other. </b>
“Embracing an ideological position without facts is an impediment to sound judgment,” De Pape said.
“Focusing on a single issue (such as retaining or dismantling the CWB single desk) disenfranchises the majority of producers out there who are sensible business men and women and would appreciate a sound business approach to CWB governance.”
Since launching his blog nearly two months ago, De Pape said response has been positive.
“I think there’s a fairly large community in the middle (between single desk opponents and advocates) that would sway one way or the other but they’re willing to discuss and listen and seek out information and make a judgment call.”
One of De Pape’s commentaries earlier this month focused on the slow movement of Canadian durum wheat to export position.
According to De Pape, farmers have been slow to deliver their durum because of a late harvest in Western Canada, better sales opportunities in other crops and dissatisfaction with what farmers perceive unfavourable initial payments for durum.
As well, De Pape cited two examples where slow movement of Canadian durum has resulted in costly demurrage charges, which are ultimately borne by producers.
One vessel has been waiting in port at Thunder Bay, Ont., since mid September, De Pape wrote.
<Actually, that one was in Vancouver. But I have found out since that there was one on demurrage in Thunder Bay as well.</b>
Demurrage charges vary, but the costs on such a vessel would typically range from $11,00 to $19,000 per day.
<b>Not sure where he got those numbers. They seem low to me, especially for a panamax (60,000 tonnes) which the one in Vancouver was.</b>
Maureen Fitzhenry, spokesperson for the CWB, acknowledged that movement of durum has been slow.
In addition to the late harvest, she said some farmers with high quality durum in storage from last year hope to blend this year’s lower quality crop before they sell.
Fitzhenry said the CWB has taken steps to hasten delivery and ensure the board’s delivery obligations are met.
“There has been some issues meeting durum shipping requirements at export positions … but we’ve been trying to do everything we can to get the durum out of the country,” she said.
“We’ve offered a couple of guaranteed delivery contracts, we’ve done phone callouts to farmers to try to urge them to bring in their durum, … we’ve tried different programs but ultimately, we can’t put a gun to anybody’s head.”
Fitzhenry acknowledged that initial payments for top grades of durum wheat need to be updated.
As of last week, the initial payment for basis grade No. 1 durum with 12.5 percent protein was $119 per tonne at port. With average freight costs deducted, that works out to about $1.70 per bushel at Saskatchewan elevators.
As of last week, the Pool Return Outlook for the same durum was about $270 per tonne at port, or $7.35 per bushel before freight deductions.
Average freight costs in Saskatchewan are roughly $57 per tonne.
Fitzhenry said new PROs were due to be released on Nov. 25.
She also said the board is waiting for Ottawa to act on a CWB recommendation that initial prices for durum be increased.
The board recommended an increase in initial prices on Sept. 3 and revised its recommendation upward on Sept. 29.
If the changes are approved, initial payments for durum could increase by $50 to $70 per tonne, Fitzhenry said.
“The original initial payment that was set for Aug. 1 was based on the Pool Return Outlook from last May … so it’s way out of date. It’s way under where the market is right now,” Fitzhenry said.
“(This) is why farmers and everyone else are pretty anxious that there be this adjustment to bring it up to where it should be.”
De Pape said the durum situation points to a marketing system that is cumbersome and costly.
“From a farmer’s perspective, the durum situation is definitely in a shambles. But there is good movement available right now and all durum producers should take advantage of it,” he wrote.
“The best place right now to send a message is in the director’s election.”
A grain industry consultant and former vice-president of Informa Economics says the Canadian Wheat Board’s director elections are lacking in meaningful debate.
John De Pape, a former trader at the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange and grain trader with Cargill, is posting a blog called the CWB Monitor, with the intent to bring important grain marketing issues to the forefront of the campaign.
De Pape has criticized the CWB for aspects of its grain marketing operations in the past.
In a Nov. 17 commentary posted on his blog, De Pape took aim at single desk candidates in the election, suggesting they have had nothing to say about real marketing issues.
<b>...took aim at some candidates</b>
“Not one single-desk supporting candidate has ventured a public comment about the durum wheat fiasco we are facing right now,” De Pape wrote.
“None talk about feed barley exports and how the CWB program is costing all farmers. And none address the problems with feed wheat pricing.”
In his blog, De Pape said the lack of meaningful debate has reduced the CWB election to a polarized ideological exercise where wheat board proponents steadfastly support the board’s single desk marketing powers and wheat board opponents lobby for its demise.
<b>That would be incorrect. I said that's what used to happen. This year is different as the single desk supporters only talk about "what if" we lose the single desk while other candidates are running on real issues that need solutions right now. They are arguing past each other. </b>
“Embracing an ideological position without facts is an impediment to sound judgment,” De Pape said.
“Focusing on a single issue (such as retaining or dismantling the CWB single desk) disenfranchises the majority of producers out there who are sensible business men and women and would appreciate a sound business approach to CWB governance.”
Since launching his blog nearly two months ago, De Pape said response has been positive.
“I think there’s a fairly large community in the middle (between single desk opponents and advocates) that would sway one way or the other but they’re willing to discuss and listen and seek out information and make a judgment call.”
One of De Pape’s commentaries earlier this month focused on the slow movement of Canadian durum wheat to export position.
According to De Pape, farmers have been slow to deliver their durum because of a late harvest in Western Canada, better sales opportunities in other crops and dissatisfaction with what farmers perceive unfavourable initial payments for durum.
As well, De Pape cited two examples where slow movement of Canadian durum has resulted in costly demurrage charges, which are ultimately borne by producers.
One vessel has been waiting in port at Thunder Bay, Ont., since mid September, De Pape wrote.
<Actually, that one was in Vancouver. But I have found out since that there was one on demurrage in Thunder Bay as well.</b>
Demurrage charges vary, but the costs on such a vessel would typically range from $11,00 to $19,000 per day.
<b>Not sure where he got those numbers. They seem low to me, especially for a panamax (60,000 tonnes) which the one in Vancouver was.</b>
Maureen Fitzhenry, spokesperson for the CWB, acknowledged that movement of durum has been slow.
In addition to the late harvest, she said some farmers with high quality durum in storage from last year hope to blend this year’s lower quality crop before they sell.
Fitzhenry said the CWB has taken steps to hasten delivery and ensure the board’s delivery obligations are met.
“There has been some issues meeting durum shipping requirements at export positions … but we’ve been trying to do everything we can to get the durum out of the country,” she said.
“We’ve offered a couple of guaranteed delivery contracts, we’ve done phone callouts to farmers to try to urge them to bring in their durum, … we’ve tried different programs but ultimately, we can’t put a gun to anybody’s head.”
Fitzhenry acknowledged that initial payments for top grades of durum wheat need to be updated.
As of last week, the initial payment for basis grade No. 1 durum with 12.5 percent protein was $119 per tonne at port. With average freight costs deducted, that works out to about $1.70 per bushel at Saskatchewan elevators.
As of last week, the Pool Return Outlook for the same durum was about $270 per tonne at port, or $7.35 per bushel before freight deductions.
Average freight costs in Saskatchewan are roughly $57 per tonne.
Fitzhenry said new PROs were due to be released on Nov. 25.
She also said the board is waiting for Ottawa to act on a CWB recommendation that initial prices for durum be increased.
The board recommended an increase in initial prices on Sept. 3 and revised its recommendation upward on Sept. 29.
If the changes are approved, initial payments for durum could increase by $50 to $70 per tonne, Fitzhenry said.
“The original initial payment that was set for Aug. 1 was based on the Pool Return Outlook from last May … so it’s way out of date. It’s way under where the market is right now,” Fitzhenry said.
“(This) is why farmers and everyone else are pretty anxious that there be this adjustment to bring it up to where it should be.”
De Pape said the durum situation points to a marketing system that is cumbersome and costly.
“From a farmer’s perspective, the durum situation is definitely in a shambles. But there is good movement available right now and all durum producers should take advantage of it,” he wrote.
“The best place right now to send a message is in the director’s election.”
Comment