Additional WGRF Checkoffs Suggested

[parsley]

In the June 2010 issue of "The Wheat Grower", the following statement was included:

"The WGRF is also considering broadening the check-off base beyond CWB deliveries to include deliveries of wheat and barley used for feed and industrial purposes including ethanol."

Members were invited to comment. Good for the WCWGA representative Gust for providing information and encouraging comments.

So what are you comments, farmers?

With the wheat and barley returns you recieve, and we hear about them often, an you afford to to support larger budgets for ever-expanding numbers of wheat and barley research projects?
Parsley

[charliep]

Who should fund research and development including plant breeding?

On the succession planning and human capital front, what is being done to
attract new cereal breeders and the resources to fund their programs? Know
some of the plant breeding community and they are getting a little gray
around the temples - some have retired recently. If you were a new
graduate with Phd, would you do cereal breeding under publically funded
programs or canola using private sector funding?

[charliep]

Should Canada look at the GRDC model from Australia? Don't know where I
heard but somehow I seem to remember to telling me that GRDC is moving
away from funding plant breeding directly. They have invested in a model of
public, University and private sector plant breeding model including retained
equity ownership in the seed varieties that have been developed. The stream
of revenue from varieties that have been released is enough to finance on
going plant breeding programs. I don't know if this is fact (malleefarmer-
have heard) but an interesting concept none the less.

Europe and the US have more private sector funded plant breeding systems.
Cereals in the US is similar to here (I think - someone can correct me if I am
wrong).

[parsley]

All of us have wish lists charliep. A Mercedes, perhaps?

I asked farmers if they felt they can afford more checkoffs.

It's a necessary question.

Farmers should be funding more scholarships too, I presume?

Enough is NEVER enough is it, especially when offloading costs is a mission and is so easy...just sneak into the accounts and snitch!:

Since 1976, the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has committed funds to encourage the development of agricultural research scientists in the long-term interest of western Canadian grain producers. Two types of academic awards were created for students at the Universities of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Lethbridge: Fellowships for students pursuing Ph.D. or Masters degrees, and Undergraduate Scholarships for third-and fourth-year agricultural students.

The Awards Program is administered jointly by CWB and each of the four universities (the University of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Lethbridge). Information on the Awards Program is available through the universities. After reviewing all of the applications, the university forwards its recommendations to the CWB Awards Committee, who make the final decision (in further consultation consideration is given to academic standing, course discipline, balance of fellowship research proposals, etc.).

Every year the CWB uses a portion of the unclaimed balances in the payment accounts to fund fellowships and scholarships in agriculture


Graduate Fellowships
Fellowships are allocated each year at the University of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Students pursuing graduate studies areas related to the production, marketing and utilization of wheat and barley can apply for a CWB fellowship.

An applicant will normally be a beginning Ph.D. student. Students entering a Masters program may also qualify for a CWB fellowship.

The fellowships awarded annually are for up to a three-year duration. The levels of the awards for Ph.D degrees are: Year 1 - $18,000; Year 2 - $20,000; Year 3 - $20,000 ( for a total of $58,000 maximum value per fellowship). For the masters program, the level of awards are: Year 1 - $16,500; Year 2 - $16,500. Fellowships are awarded on the basis of a proven record of outstanding academic achievement and research interest in areas of study concerning production, utilization, and marketing of wheat and barley.

Applications must be submitted to the Dean of Agriculture at one of the three universities that administer the program. Applicants are requested to apply for a CWB fellowship at the university at which they intend to study. Application deadlines will be established individually by each of the three participating universities.

The universities will forward fellowship recommendations to the CWB. The CWB will notify successful candidates.

Undergraduate Scholarships
Each year, 29 undergraduate scholarships are awarded to students who are pursuing studies in field related to grain and grain marketing. The awards are divided between third-and fourth-year students, with a total of five awards going to the University of Alberta, four awards going to the University of Lethbridge, 13 awards going to the University of Saskatchewan and seven awards going to the University of Manitoba.

Third-year scholarships are worth $1,500 and fourth-year scholarships are worth $1,750. Students receiving a scholarship in their third year and maintaining high academic standards in that year may reapply for the fourth-year awards.


Can farmers afford yet more funding?
Pars

[charliep]

Over time, you have indicated support research and development including plant breeding. How should it funded? Do support the private sector model of canola?

[freewheat]

I would ask first who gets the benefit of supposedly better varieties.In theory, the consumer should get a cheaper, more consistent food supply. I guess in theory, farmers should get more stable yield.

The thing is, what was a good wheat yield in 1970. What is a good one now? Has it really changed due to varietys or is it more of a better agronomic package as a whole? Or is yield basically stagnant?

I realize there is more to bredding than just yield, but in theory other traits (midge resistance, herb resistance) must make a farmer more money. Has it?

For here, a good hrs yield is the same as it always was. If all the "10% better yielder than red fife" , 10% better yield than katepwa, etc. actually occurred, we should be getting at least 100 bushels of hrs by now. But we are not.

My point is, why should farmers pay for something the consumer "IN THEORY" is benefitting from? They should be paying for improvements in a better food supply.

Is there a checkoff on cabbage variety development? Is there a checkoff on other industries? I'm just asking, maybe there are. If a guy is producing widgets, why in heck would he pay someone to find ways to produce more widgets so that he and all his competitors could sell them for less, in the process, shaving his margin?

I have a small jar of thatcher wheat above my desk. I glance at it now and then and wonder if I should seed the stuff in the garden and reproduce it and grow a couple acres side by side with the newest variety, using exact agronomic processes. I wonder what the difference would be. Considering 50 bushels an acre of thatcher occurred with minimal inputs way back then, and with way higher inputs one targets 50 bushels now adays, I would be very curious as to the results.

[ProFarmer]

We as canadian farmers funded the development of Barrie wheat now Warbutons grow it in England...I know of seed growers that have shipped the seed over there....

[parsley]

charliep, if farmers reply to this thread and say they are wanting to fund what is and even considerably more, you won't have to fret about funding sources. Deductions will increase and flow.

So just wait for a bit. I'm hoping for some sense of what farmers think and what their pocket books demand.

Maybe gov'ts and Univ's can fund hundreds of more projects than are already being funded if farmers are gung ho to go.

Pars

[TOM4CWB]

Pars,

I CAN opt our of WGRF. If they do not smarten up... our farm WILL.

Not an idle threat... A PROMISE.

[checking]

There is an easier way to fund projects. Just make a deal with the railways to go over their rail cap. Money in bundles will flow to WGRF. No one will even blink at their entitlements.

[bucket]

Railways can't go over the cap with reduced production. They hail it as great thing if the railways don't over the cap, they moved less grain and put grain movement on the back burner.

If they hadn't every elevator from regina to vancouver/thunder bay would be empty waiting for farmers to deliver.

[checking]

You're talking about rule playing, bucket.

I'm talking about a DEAL where I get to pay to renovate a U of S rapid growth lab. I'm not even issued a tax receipt for my expropriated funding, but bless his heart, gustgd did offer a thank you.

A tax receipt would blow up WGRF argument that it would be too expensive to trace the money stream. We can't have that.

Meanwhile, my farm building project is cut back.

[ajl]

I hate this ever expanding list of checkoffs. It seems every one feels they are entitled to my money. Consumers are the ones that benefit from improved crop yeilds not the farmer. More available=lower price.

[bluefargo]

Tom
Why would you opt out? Just curious

[TOM4CWB]

bluefargo,

WGRF gets the some $60M... and the next thing I see is they want to expand funding. They can't even effectively spend what they have now.

Booze research... the list goes on and on... the most profitable co's (Malt Hard Liquor) are getting big money from me. The tonnes used are very limitied and market effect next to nothing.