• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Strahl to Resign?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    #41
    Tower Said.
    moving grain across a border because more income can be gained by limiting the effectiveness and therefore the value for other farmers from the cwb.

    I am sure Canada is the only country in the world where a farmer can openly state that some farmers lost sale is great for their own economic prosperity and have special rules enacted to gain their goals. And actually feel good about it.
    And actually think they are doing all farmers good. I am joining the F-OFF.

    Comment

      #42
      lifer, and yet a majority of farmers want to be able to deal through the board. I understand that the percentage of the American population for example is approximately the same as in Canada. I would think with the natural advantages of the lower 48, plus the much higher level of subsidization that more farmers would have been able or willing to hold onto their land.

      Perhaps there are advantages that are not pointed out to us from an agency that like the board has been around long enough that few remember its reason for being.

      Comment

        #43
        kamichael, I would bet that most countries have disputes between farmers over access, marketing, and philosophy. I would also bet that there are farmers in each country that feel good about winning a battle of import from time to time. Would you have felt good if the feds had won the court case?

        Comment

          #44
          No, the majority want choice. Survey after survey for the last ten years, not just the plebiscite, according to Ritter, want choice.

          But so what? There are plenty of things in the world that the absolute majority gets no say in and who I sell my grain too should be one of them.

          By the way all the price comparisons I have seen between the board and the northern US are non-subsidized ones with the board on the short end of the stick every time.

          You single deskers shrug off my rights as if they are nothing, force me to take less than I would have otherwise gotten on my own, then come up with all these rationalizations why less is more and that its for my own good when it clearly is not. And then in the end claim that my forced loss is someone else's gain so that makes it alright.

          That's some pretty stink'in think'in.

          Comment

            #45
            And the reason the 'board' came into being was to provide cheap grain to the war effort in Europe. The war is over tower.

            Comment

              #46
              "Perhaps there are advantages that are not pointed out to us from an agency that like the board has been around long enough that few remember its reason for being."

              It is important to respect the beginnings of organization. The war effort may have been a noble reason to restrict the rights of farmers.

              However it is important to focus on the future. If you can't remember or don't know why it should be, maybe it shouldn't. Or the board needs to become relevant to us as farmers and other businesses that can work together to make something better.

              Comment

                #47
                If they haven't pointed them out by now they do not exist.

                You are into the wishful thinking category with that one. It's too bad single deskers can't back up their claims with verifible facts.

                Comment

                  #48
                  I had a quick search on the web and came up with this Univ. sask study. This is just the summary but was pretty interesting in itself. I expect anyone interested can find the full report.

                  http://www.kis.usask.ca/CWB_Studies/ExecSummary_BarleyReport2005.pdf

                  A comment was made on another thread regarding the sale of feed cheaply to feeders I agree that it is a problem. I can't find the posting right now but I seem to remember that this was a fault laid at the door of the board. I wonder if anyone has looked at what we are doing to encourage the board in this attitude, for example are we electing cattlemen as our local cwb directors?

                  Beyond that I think that there needs to be a shift in societies attitude about value added production if the value added comes from value subtracted elsewhere in agriculture, ie the pockets of the grain producers. This isn't a wheat board issue, Look at the number of cattle that Agricore and saskpool have now. There wouldn't be a shift simply because we went to an open market.

                  Comment

                    #49
                    What did farmers receive? What were the world barley prices? How did the CWB perform relative to world barley prices?

                    In a chart format would be great. They probably have that in their full report.

                    With the power to not undersell and branding the CWB says it does even with disciplined average selling the result CWB should show well.

                    Comment

                      #50
                      Tower seems to me that there needs to be a shift in the CWB's attitude towards value added.

                      The customer is not an enemy. This is not a war. The customer is also not your friend. Commerce is neutral.

                      Comment

                      • Reply to this Thread
                      • Return to Topic List
                      Working...