Barley Question/Voter Criteria

[cottonpicken]

O.K. jw i'll bite but with half a 26 of vodka in my belly i reserve the right to change my opinion in the morning and i'll try to be nice.

Fundamentaly a farmer should be able to do what ever he wants with his product!!!-unero numo


However that same farmer may find it addvantageuoes(?) to market under a co-op type collective.

The five reasons for this are:

1-marketing is HARD 99% of proffesional traders dont make a decent return and actually lots lose money.
2-Do you ask a plumber how to fix your tractor?Everybody has a job and everybodys good at something.
3-Do suppliers not love the thought of a huge stable supply of a product.
4-Do the producers not love the thought of huge stable market to supply into.
5-Safety in numbers
6-Cash advandeses


I'll never tottally defend this government pig but in my mind the theory and idea is sound.

[wilagro]

snappy: The answer to your question is...wait for it...ratatat...

YES.

[SASKFARMER3]

Answer for the question
The Canadian wheat board should not have a say in marketing my barley in Canada.
Thats 6 ballots for our farm.

[wade]

Let the discussions begin! No matter what the questions were, someone wouldn't be happy. This is the same as alot of other ballots- although none of the candidates please you, pick the one that most represents your thinking.
2 ballots marked #3!

[cowman]

Just looking at the questions I have to ask:
Why have #3 as an option, when in fact #2 allows you to market however you choose, anyway?
What happens if 48% opt for #1, 38% opt for #2, and 14% opt for #3? Does that mean option #1 wins?
All you need is option #1 and option #2?

[northfarmer]

cp, bold of you ofter a half a vodka, reminds me of my younger days....would still do it but it kills me the next day now

1. marketing is hard and you do not always win...and for me that is pricing in the top third of the year. or even top half...but it is key part of success in business....if you cannot set a price to sell your work than you should not be in business...no different in the farming business decades/centruies ago when much was done by barter....you are only as a good a farmers as you are a deal maker and forces collective marketing puts those with the skills to do it on their own at a comparative disadvantage...the rest can pool oif they want but at their choice...

2. on our farm, though we do not have licensed mechanics, we have very good farm mechanics and virtually do everyting with the exsception of specialized computerized based diagnostics here on the farm....we cannot rely on the third parties due to cost and timeliness...except or course on the new iron where we have warranty....finally getting some of that stuff on the farm

3. suppliers love stable supply because they have to be less agressive to get it....supply will match demand when the right price equillibrium has been met....basic microeconomic theory

4. does not matter for the same reasons as above

5. safety in numbers, there will no fewer farmers if we get marketing choice, fo those that want to work on selling collectively there would be no impediments for this on voluntary basis

6. cash advance are seperate legislation than the CWB act and they have absolutely no correlation....i get advances on my peas and oats from the canola growers association....

the purpose pf the poll is to get the views of the producers and is not a binary question...there are three perpectives and you can give your position, makes sense to me....

my vote will be no. yes, no

[craig]

Looking at the replies from the board this morning you can't help but question the logic of their argument. The board continues to argue that they can not be effective unless they maintain single desk status. They cannot be effective when producers have other options. Yet we have a ( dual market) feed barley market at present. They then turn around and produce a study that shows how much more value they provide in the feed barley market.So they can't be effective in an open market yet they produce a study that says the opposite. The question that needs to be asked is who is trying to confuse who.

[chaffmeister]

Just_wondering:

Top Five Reasons to Vote for a Voluntary CWB

1. $100 million (calculated with real data); that’s what the CWB system on barley cost you in 04/05 over what a competitive market (like canola) would have cost you.
2. $60 million (estimated); the price impact the CWB has on canola revenues in a crop year as farmers sell too much in the fall – just so they can get some cash to pay for inputs (on wheat, no less).
3. Pick a $ number; no more final pool return below average market price for the year (calculated, not estimated with some economic model); take a look at the Sparks study
4. Pick a $ number; the price impact on other non-CWB crops (hint: same idea as on canola)
5. Pick a $ number; real Warburtons type premium programs for malt
6. Pick a $ number; no more interest fiasco with a small feed barley pool. (Remember, the contingency fund really got started by the overflow of interest revenue in the feed barley pool back a few years.)
7. Hypothetically speaking….no more feed barley sales to Saudi Arabia or UAE at prices below local feed prices.
8. Hypothetically speaking…..no more importing malt barley from Denmark.
9. Hypothetically speaking…..6-row farmgate prices that reflect reality. Maybe we’ll even see some growth in 6-row production - as we should.
10. Hypothetically speaking…..when corn rallies, barley keeps pace (what a concept)
11. Competition, competition, competition….

……sorry, I got carried away…..

[chaffmeister]

Joke of the day.

Part I
A Jan 22nd CWB news release states “asking farmers if they would prefer to sell their barley to any buyer, including the CWB, creates an unrealistic expectation that the CWB can continue to offer the same value to farmers without its single desk, said Ken Ritter, chair of the CWB’s farmer-controlled board of directors.”
He goes on:
“This question is not, in our opinion, intended to accurately gauge farmers’ feelings on the issue of barley marketing since it perpetuates the belief that the CWB can be effective without its single desk,” Ritter said. “Including an impossible choice is not the way to consult with producers on an issue of such crucial economic importance.”


Part II
In a producer survey done in May 2006, the CWB asked the following question:
“If you had to choose between three different approaches to marketing barley, which of the following would you prefer?
1. That barley marketing, for export and domestic human consumption, remain the sole responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board.
2. The dual marketing option, where private companies and individual farmers could compete with the CWB for barley sales in the domestic and export market.
3. That there be a totally open market for barley without the Canadian Wheat Board.


So let me get this right – it’s OK for the CWB to ask the “dual market” question when it “consults with producers on an issue of such crucial economic importance”, but not OK for the government to do it.

Got it. Shame on you Chuck! Didn’t you know the CWB had already asked the question and 46% of farmers surveyed chose the dual market option (plus 19% that chose a totally open market without a CWB leaving only 29% supporting the CWB as it sits.)

Come on – we’re all adults here. Let’s be frank. The only reason the CWB opposes the “choice” question is that it fears it’ll lose. This isn’t about allowing farmers to make decisions about the CWB, nor is it about “confusing” or “misleading” questions. This is all about protecting the CWB – regardless of what farmers say they really want.

Regardless of how you want to spin it, what stays perfectly clear is that there a lot of farmers out there that actually LIKE the idea of having the CWB as an option in an open market. Before the CWB shoots off its mouth saying that it can’t survive in an open market, it needs to think about the large group of farmers out there that believes it can. Here's the irony of that - the CWB has been very vocal about how it can't survive in an open market, yet half the farmers out there still believe it can. That's gotta be frustrating for the Borg.

Any pole, plebiscite or survey should ABSOLUTELY include the question/option that resonates so clearly with so many. Any question that does not include the “choice” option disenfranchises a very large group of barley farmers.

But maybe that’s what the CWB wants…..

[cottonpicken]

I would guess the board is just trying to protect its accountability.It knows its still going to be around but its going to have to preform well.It will all come down to how smart their workers are.

NorthFarmer if you have a handle on the markets than good for.On the other hand if people dont understand them they should be honest with themselves and egknowledge the fact.Basic ta debate doesnt take place on this forum so i would have to question all of the posters here on how well informed they are.