CWB and CGC Grain Grading at Port....Gossip?

[TOM4CWB]

The internet is a very powerful tool. Did anyone catch up with the rumour that canola oil had serious health risks? (see Western Producer of April 5/01 page 23) This erroneous message was started by a technology worker in Massachusetts who 'discovered' these concerns on a website and fired it to some friends.

They sent it to some friends, and soon it became a topic for a website about urban legends - false stories that get embedded in human consciousness.

The canola council and others have spent significant resources to counteract what started as an innocent sharing of 'mis'information.

My point is that I hope the anonymity of this site doesn't numb the participants' common sense, recognizing the world is watching (so to speak).

Falling number tests are conducted at port, and if there are problems, obviously they are rectified before the CGC provides a certificate final on any vessel. This is the basis of Canada's reputation.

Concerning visual grading, there is no question that it is not as precise as taking specific tests on specific samples, but is has proven to be very effective and inexpensive.

I'm sure that whatever problems arise as shipments arrive at port terminals, that Canada continues to meet the specifications of our customers.

Tom

[TOM4CWB]

thalpenny,

My question is then,

When will we begin to grade using milling standards, rather than visual standards.

I dug out my CIGI book and it said:

Page 700,
"...Canada is beset with geographical difficulties in moving grain to port.
However, although movement of grain to ocean ports is complex and costly, it does have one important redeeming factor -- each step of the way (from farmer's deliveries to primary elevators, to marshalling of rail carlots prior to shipment to export position, where carlots of like grade are binned at terminal elevators), grain of diverse origin is combined. Much regional variability is thereby eliminated, imparting uniformity between lots of simular grade."

It is obvious to anyone with the change to the grain handling system in the last 2 years that now our grading system must change also.

3 unit trains from one area could now fill a whole boat.

Big problem.

Maybe now it would be OK if I got paid for my specific wheat, instead of being thrown into a big blender, and getting paid for whatever got spewed out on the other end?

If I have wheat with a high falling #, would it be OK if I got paid for that?

[parsley]

thalpenny, many of us are very familiar with the "false stories that get embedded in human consciousness". We 've been told for years that the CWB had a mandate to get the best prices for farmers. Not true. We've been told for years that the CWB had a mandate to work in the interests of farmers. Not true. CWB said they couldn't issue export licenses without a change in legislation. Not true. Ideas that were imbedded in our consciousness, just like you say. Since the CWb is purported to have authored the letter (I've never seen it), it certainly should be received with skepticism. Good point Thalpenny. Thanks for the tip.

Parsley

[AdamSmith]

thalpenney, I made a judgement call here. Weighing the possible ramifications to our system and farmers bottom line vs the need for farmers to know what is going on within the system.

As a farmer, which is more important to me, having knowledge of something and keeping it quiet because it could cause harm in the short term or bringing the problem to light so that action can be taken so that this type of problem won't reoccur in the future?

I chose the latter based on the fact that if damage has been done and dollars have been lost, it has allready happened. Keeping quiet won't undo what has already been done.

It is true I do not have all the facts but to suggest this is merely misinformation when I have a letter that would suggest otherwise is quite absurd. Only a really bad poker player would try to bluff after the cards have been shown.

I guess what irks me here is that HY644 the fusarium resistant CPS wheat was regected because of KVD and within a few weeks of that decision I find out that this system is proving to have it's failings and the regulators who impose this system (KVD)on the farmers of WCanada are, behind closed doors, questioning it's current value. While the message for public consumption remains something quite different.

I hope things have been straightened out or will be very soon, but instead of trying to sweep this under the rug maybe farmers should be made aware of it and see if they think changes are warrented.

AdamSmith

[ianben]

Hi All
I am amazed you don't do falling number test, we call it Hagberg, on each load delivered to elevator. That is the way it is done here, below 250 is rejected and is feed, no argument, no premium,
Merchants sometimes try to blend, but it is risky as you sometimes end up with more feed.
The bakers say they can tell when it has been blended so you do damage your reputation.
Our millers like to use one variety for each batch of flour to give consistant
results and falling numbers are definitely important to them.
So looks to me like the CWB is not helping you in this area either.

Regards Ian

[ianben]

Just a thought
I presume you guys know what affects falling numbers?
Do you ignore this traite as you are not individually tested for it?
If this is true perhaps it could be an advantage. Some years if the weather is against us ALL our wheat will fail the falling number test. Last year was such a year.

Regards Ian

[bbrindle]

I sent an email to the CGC earlier today to see if they wanted to join this and respond. They asked me to post the following:

The CWB has not had any customer rejection of sales or shipments of No. 2
CWRS or any other wheat grades due to concerns over falling number results. The CWB is currently working with the CGC and other members in the grain handling system to ensure that our customers are satisfied with the falling numbers of the wheat they're purchasing from the CWB.

[charliep]

Just a note to highlight we are talking about an industry problem and not just a CWB one. The issue starts right at the farm level with varietal selection to fit markets the first (keeping in mind mother nature) right through to providing the customer the product they are paying for. It is an issue that in some sense involves all elements of the industry from farm managers to CGC to elevators to terminals - anyone who handles/blends/grades wheat.

My experience suggests that there is a pretty reasonable correlation between our current grading standards and the quality characturistics our customers want/are paying for. Do we want to include other quality characturistics in our grading standards? Are there things we are doing right? How would we change the system if it needs improvement? In the US, they pay premiums for wheat quality characturistics. Do they segregate wheat with certain quality or do they blend to achieve an end quality result? Who accepts the risk/profit from blending? Should falling number be a grade determining factor as Ianben indicates is the case in the UK? Could we achieve premium for falling number as a grade specification/requirement or would this simply be another reason for customers to discount some wheat?

[AdamSmith]

It amazes me how the CGC and the CWB react when anything that might suggest they're not the dictionary's example of perfection comes out in public!

Judging by bbrindles note the CGC is quite POed that this information has come to light. As farmers were supposed to be dumb hayseeds who have no business inquiring about what is happening, if there are problems it's none of our concern, they'll look after it and just send us (farmers) the bill.

Just shut up, grow grain, and pay up when others screw up.

The CGC says no sales have been lost, that may very well be so but that doesn't mean other grain had to brought in to meet those sales commitments and that the grain in question is not still sitting at the west coast with no buyer for it. Or that the grain in question was just deep discounted in order to move it out.

If my liability ended when I delivered the grain to the elevator this wouldn't even be an issue. But that's not what happens I'm expected to cover this screw-up no mater whose fault it was.

Justice Estey said let those who screw-up pay the price not the farmer. But that won't happen will it. The needs of the regulators supercede the needs of the farmers.

I can already see the web starting to be spun.

AdamSmith

[AdamSmith]

I knew when I posted the last message that it would be fodder for some negative comments. However, I posted it because all of this discussion was based on the declaration of a rumour.

And it is posted by anonymous people, who obviously have a decided bias against the CWB. One who evidently works closely with grain companies (is that a bias?) And who attempt at every turn to discredit the organization that has an impeccable reputation with international customers on behalf of western Cdn farmers. Am I sounding defensive? - I hope so.

To Ianben, the visual grading system works as a cost effective indicator of grain quality. Percentage of Hard Vitreous Kernel (HVK) and degree of kernel soundness are reliable indicators of alpha amylase enzyme activity (sprouting). Rather than have to test the well over 1 million truckloads that enter the elevator system each year, the testing can be done at terminal position, before assembling the product for the customer, in a much more efficient way, and obviously lower cost. This is enabled by a strict varietal registration system, so wheat that has the same kernel shape and color has defined milling characteristics.

Canada has a world leading reputation for providing consistency, uniformity and reliabiilty of meeting specs. This doesn't sound like a system that has performed poorly.

Hoever, I agree that our wheat quality system in Canada will have to change and evolve. Again, I direct people to look at the discussion paper on this topic on the www.cwb.ca/publications... entitled Western Canada's wehat qualty control system.

Also Charlie is right - this is an industry issue, not one to be directed solely at the CWB.

Tom