market manipulation glyphosate

[sawfly]

had visit from chem dealer today.
we talked about fert prices chem prices etc.
he talked about a general 3% price increase in chem prices and that buct m might drop some . 1$/acre

then he says , glyphosate might be in short supply. i say what, your kidding right.

Turns out it might only be cheap glyphosate thats in short supply

so whats going on,there should be lots around. then he goes on to say that when they placed their orders ,
they had to take a pallet of the higher priced brand name stuff to get a pallet of generic.

80% of his market is the cheap stuff, so he would like to order 80/20

now we get into speculation,

your monsanto, you control 90% of the active ingedient that goes into the generics. so if you short the active ing. to the generics and create a shortage of the cheap stuff.

the dealer is sold out of the cheap generic, but funny theres lots of the high price preium brand out there. We should be thankful we can count on monsanto when the generics let us down.

they must figure they have succesfully killed clearout and are takeing back the glyphosate market on their terms.

[SASKFARMER3]

Lately what a chem dealer tells me I take with a grain of salt.
They are been sold a line of BS from their suppliers who say that the Generics aren't hurting their bottom line but really they have.
Some $120,000,000.00 million to be exact. The free trips etc meetings all over the world etc I am entitled to my entitlements. Sounds like the liberals. For years us farmers have been fed a line of BS from these suppliers. Oh it snowed in Bangladesh have to increase fertilizer prices because a ship might cross through waters near it etc. FARMERS WAKE UP your at the bottom of the food chain because you believe all the BS these guys are giving you. Monsanto isn't your friend.

[Vader]

Ahh! But Cargill and ADM are.

[SASKFARMER3]

No Cargill and ADM aren't either, as farmers they have got most of us by the balls. As farming got tighter to keep there sales they opened up financing positions etc. well if farming doesn't improve they will eventually have you and me working for them. SORRY THATS THE FACTS. But if we can be one step ahead and get more educated on whats really going on in the real world then maybe just maybe we can create policy in this country that if in the farmers best interest not keeping people working and cheap food.

[northfarmer]

the demand elasticity for glyphosate has been been shown as very strong....total usage of glyhosate has risen dramatically in response to lower retail prices both here in Canada and other parts of the world....manufacutring capapacity I am told is at 100%..

....so I have already booked my low cost/no serice glyphosate for the spring to ensure I can not only get it, but get it in totes.....

I do beleive Monsanto does manufacture ingredients for other labels and remanufacturers.....and that they are servicing the existing contracts but cannot expand them due to manufacutring constraints.....it is unlikely them or others will make incremental capital expansions given the maturity of the market and lower margins on sales......

so do not get caught up in your conspiracy theory thoughts, the patent is off and anyone can now make it as long as they can overcome the hurdles for registration and resale...and of course they can make decent returns doing so.....

as such we must ensure that OUI type capabilities remain so that as farmers we are not shut out of being able to get equivalent products from other global manufacturers that can enter our market....there has to be fair and impartial balance to the protectionist lobbying of those who currently vend into our market place....IMHO....

plus glyhosate prices are the least of our problems.....how about the cost of grassy weed control and other herbicides that we have only seen cost increases for....i can live with the lower csot of my glyhosates, the real issue should be focussed on other chemisitries that are now and soon will be off patent

[wd9]

Given the value appreciation of the dollar in the last year, shouldn't the chemistries have gone down 25%? Just asking. Grain went down by that amount immediately. Imagine where it would be today. Sorry, just ramblings.

[sawfly]

your right on that,about wild oat sprays.
it sure looks like their reinforceing the walls around north amercia (with GROU)to prevent any real competition in generics.

a mechanism for paying a share of orginal regestration costs and a complete opening of the border for off patent generics is what we need.

anything less will show that the chem companies write the rules for the govt.

we shall see if harpers govt. sides with the farmer & taxpayer or chem companies.

[Southpaw]

I certainly agree that Croplife and the Chem co's are trying to keep generic chems out of Canada. But we (farmers) have a problem. Are the generic actives identical and are the carriers registered? Australia had a problem with generic chem that the carriers are not registered or the actives are not quite the same. There was a cargo of canola rejected going into France as well as Japan. We, as an exporting country can't afford these types of problems.

[poorboy]

Why do you think that the chemical companies are trying so hard to get the OUI program shut down?

Over 80% of the chemicals we use in agriculture in Canada are coming off of patent in the next 5 years. You will be able to buy Horizon BTM for $5/acre if you have the OUI program in effect. It will not be any cheaper if you do not have the OUI program. Why, you ask, because in my opinion it is not worth the time of a Chinese company to bother doing the testing or labeling, etc for the Canadian market. It is just too small. When you look at the volume of chemical in a wild oat product, it is way less than in a glyphosate. I have no idea if it cost less to manufacture, but I would be it is even less than glyposate.

Right now with the OUI program, the product can come into canada if it is deemed to be equivalent to a currently registered product. If we lose this, we have to ask ourselves if the Canadian market is big enough for anyone to bother making generic herbicides for us.

Some of the forums from the US talk about current pricing on Clearout 41 at $9/us gallon. I think that this works out to about $2.75/liter canadian for purchase today.

This glyphosate thing is a smoke and mirrors deal. The big chemicals companies are not that worried about glyphosate. They are worried that the Achieve, Horizon, Puma Super, Buctril M, Thumper, etc. are all able to be imported soon if the OUI stays in place.

Some companies are trying to protect themselves from this. For instance Syngenta is introducing Axial herbicide and getting out of Achieve. Coincidence that Axial has a new patent and Achieve is about to expire? I think not!

I am just a farmer, and have not bothered to send in my letter to the government in support of the OUI program, but the more I think about it, I realize it could have a huge impact on my input costs.

[cropduster]

So at 2.75/litre for Clearout(not a volume purhase)just how much are the Mann boys making thru FNA(Agracity,whoever that is)????No wonder PMRA is a little twitchy about dealing with these guys!!

[stubblejumper]

If FNA wasn't making money they wouldn't be in the chemical bussiness.

[wd9]

Technically they are not in the chem business, they are in the paperwork of oui business, at least officially as of today. Responsibility of the product lies with the signee of the paperwork (the farmer).

The main problem with OUI is chem registration data sets. PMRA can't access those data sets free of charge but the OUI act assumes they will. Also OUI assumed very small importation of a product which would not be held to the same reg criteria as a chem sold by a dealer in Canada. That in itself is a problem. Let alone compound the issue by spraying half the country with an OUI product, then the holder of the data set who never got compensated can go after PMRA with a vengence. PMRA then potentially pays the cost. They are in the registration business not the chem business.

Issues around OUI are complicated and the new proposal is being discussed very closely with good representation from a lot of the key players. From the growers side focus on new legislation that provides access and a competitive environment is key. Also, arbitrated compensation and time sensitive costing for data sets. The latter not being part of the original discussion of the OUI task force. It is now.

PMRA and Health Canada want chems that are registered like the rest, minimizing litigation.

Crop life members want compensation for data sets.

Horticulture wants faster access to the minor chems.

Somewhere in the middle will be the end result.

The following motion was passed at the Ag HofCSC "That the Minister of Health responsible for the Pest Management Regulatory Agency maintain the existing own use program fot the next two crop years while working toward the implementation of a better and more producer-friendly Grower Requested Own Use Program"

Hope this helps a bit with the discussion.

[poorboy]

WD9,

It is a very poorly organized country that we live in, if the data sets are presented to our government for initial registration, then when the patent runs out the PMRA can't access those same data sets.

FNA is just the forerunner of the generic chemical importation business. If the OUI program was launched in full force, the people at FNA would be out of work. There are lots of businesses that would sprout up and handle the generic chemicals to farmers. FNA has had the vision to get the ball rolling and introduce farmers to some competition.

As I see it the whole problem with the OUI program is that it is a import direct to farm program. There is no chemical dealer involved, no chemical reps, no warehousing, etc. NO MIDDLEMEN are making MONEY. It is very hard for Canadian chemical dealers to compete with this. Local chemical companies will probably be the ones handling the importation and sales of generic chemicals in the future. This would allow farmers to have some chemical savings and dealers to have some profit as well.

Thank God that some generic chemical has made its way into Canada, so farmers here can see what the rest of the world is truely paying for product. It obviously is a game of pricing the product to what the market will bear.

Amazing to me how the local glyphosate market dropped in price on low end glyphosate, and then when it was too late to get delivery of the Clearout 41, there was no supply of local product to be had. But there was lots of the higher priced (higher margin?) glyphosate to be had. This shell game is bad for farmers. All the more reason for the OUI or programs like it to be in place. IT HELPS CREATE COMPETITION!!!!!

[sawfly]

crop duster why would you worry about the mann brothers makeing a little money thru fna?

when they have saved every farmer in canada 2-3$/liter whether they have used clearout or not.
you would prefer the big companies to make 4 times as much?

Agricity paid monsanto for the data sets, in an agreed settlement.
the USA( unlike canada) does have some competition law. To foster competition. the courts would have imposed a settlement, if monsanto wouldnt deal.

you would have had cheap glyphosate 12 years ago thru focus on inputs if canada had a simmilar law.

if the GROU gets the go ahead we wil never have access to reasonably priced generics from offshore.

can you imangine the public outrage if in other industrys , say oil, if the borders around north amercia were closed.
and consumers had to pay 2 - 4 times as much than the rest of the world.

[wd9]

Sawfly re: never have generics.

Is that the sky falling?

You will if you have someone to register it, and pay for the arbitrated and resonably compensated data. In the future no doubt it will be companies like FNA doing this. There is nothing to stop UFA from doing it or any other farm cooperative. Even AU could do it if they wanted to.

The key is some company is going to have to register it either by creating new data (expensive) or buying rights to existing data (compensatory).

Patents are protection of the idea or process. The data is the stickler here and is not patented, but owned. You can't copy a piece of music because it is more than 20 years old. It isn't patented, it is owned - copyrighted. You can if the authour lets you however or if the owner is reasonably compensated. Reasonable arbitrated compensation rules are going to be a big discussion.

You can't expect PMRA to approve a chemical for use in Canada if the registration data isn't used and/or payed for, or bypassing registration rules that others - like crop life companies - have to do.

In the mean time until this is all settled and understood, it is going to get ugly with this file.

As a farmer, access to price competitive international products registered in Canada would be what I would want. In order to register those patent lapsed products, access and compensation to data, and a company to register needs to happen. The system is this way in the US.

No reason it can't be mirrored here in Canada, and would be far more effective than OUI.