Canola and the CWB
The Manitoba Canola Growers Association has opened a can of worms by conducting a farmer survey on the voluntary marketing of canola through the Canadian Wheat Board. The arguments for and against the single desk are well known. In this case, just the idea of voluntary canola marketing by the board has caused a wave of opposition.
It should be noted that Manitoba Canola Growers is exploring the issue based on a request from its farmer members. Some producers like the idea of price pooling and there’s a perception that basis levels on canola are sometimes too wide. On top of that, the interested producers wonder about the use of producer cars for canola and the use of the Port of Churchill should the board be involved. Check out the Manitoba Canola Growers Association website for more information.
The association says it supports the open market concept for canola. Voluntary canola marketing through the CWB would be just another option.
If there aren’t enough producers willing to market some of their canola production in this manner, the idea will not proceed. That’s likely what will happen. However, it’s a reasonable idea to investigate and the visceral opposition is unwarranted.
I’m Kevin Hursh.
I agree with Kevin that the visceral opposition is unwarranted, reality is if a group of farmers want to create a voluntary pool for canola, and use the CWB that should be there choice. It is the same arguement oponents of the CWB make for freedom of choice in marketing.
However I also note that the same folk who may subscribe to this pool are perhaps the same folk (I am making an assumption here!) that say the dual market for wheat and barley will not work, despite proof it works just fine in Ontario, and indeed in western Canada prior to the war measures act which eliminated the dual market for the CWB. Fact is the can of worms is this process sets the stage for the obvious one, why not dual market for barley and for wheat?
What this discussion tells you it there
must be a group of marketers who may feel more comfortable with a pooling system (hence the positive support for the CWB), the quesion remains, is the right to chose that option.
And if it is good for the goose (canola) then it must be good for the ganders (wheat and barley!).
hope springs eternal.. an hopefully it is spring soon.
The Manitoba Canola Growers Association has opened a can of worms by conducting a farmer survey on the voluntary marketing of canola through the Canadian Wheat Board. The arguments for and against the single desk are well known. In this case, just the idea of voluntary canola marketing by the board has caused a wave of opposition.
It should be noted that Manitoba Canola Growers is exploring the issue based on a request from its farmer members. Some producers like the idea of price pooling and there’s a perception that basis levels on canola are sometimes too wide. On top of that, the interested producers wonder about the use of producer cars for canola and the use of the Port of Churchill should the board be involved. Check out the Manitoba Canola Growers Association website for more information.
The association says it supports the open market concept for canola. Voluntary canola marketing through the CWB would be just another option.
If there aren’t enough producers willing to market some of their canola production in this manner, the idea will not proceed. That’s likely what will happen. However, it’s a reasonable idea to investigate and the visceral opposition is unwarranted.
I’m Kevin Hursh.
I agree with Kevin that the visceral opposition is unwarranted, reality is if a group of farmers want to create a voluntary pool for canola, and use the CWB that should be there choice. It is the same arguement oponents of the CWB make for freedom of choice in marketing.
However I also note that the same folk who may subscribe to this pool are perhaps the same folk (I am making an assumption here!) that say the dual market for wheat and barley will not work, despite proof it works just fine in Ontario, and indeed in western Canada prior to the war measures act which eliminated the dual market for the CWB. Fact is the can of worms is this process sets the stage for the obvious one, why not dual market for barley and for wheat?
What this discussion tells you it there
must be a group of marketers who may feel more comfortable with a pooling system (hence the positive support for the CWB), the quesion remains, is the right to chose that option.
And if it is good for the goose (canola) then it must be good for the ganders (wheat and barley!).
hope springs eternal.. an hopefully it is spring soon.
Comment