CWB cancels malt barley pool

[charliep]

The question about whether maltsters honor existing cash contracts is an interesting.
The original contract and price is with the CWB so they have the hammer to enforce.
My guess (could be wrong) is the original sale/price which in this case is benefit at a
higher price likely flows to the pooling system. Maybe someone can help but can a
farmer work with a neighbor/another farmer to fullfill the cashplus contract with the
benefit split based on their negotiations?

Should note have had feedback on malster/exporter production with minimum price
guarantees. A priority in future is clearer information around malt barley contract
specifications and reasons for rejection.

[Burbert]

WOW, Lets have a pool, let's not have a pool. It seems that whatever the CWB does or doesn't do, it's WRONG for the angriville guys/gals. The only thing that will make them happy, is a complete, total, meltdown of the system. Then their corporate buddies will bail them out, paying 1 penny per bushel for grain. WELL GUESS what? Their wishes are being answered, no pool and total market melt down seems to be in progress. But and its a big BUTT, apparently thats a good thing for farming......

[Hopperbin]

Burbert you don't get it. No one in industry would get away with terminating a pool early in my opinion. The CWB admits that extra sales are very limited.
So in that instance even if new sales work to 4 dollars net to producer they should be on the pool. 4 dollars is better than feed price and should be in the pool. For dollar value it still works in all farmers best interest to keep the sales in the pool. Terminating is irresponsible. Not that we need more laws sometimes but the CWB should be instructed to put the sales into the pool

[Hopperbin]

Interesting Charlie's statement about low domestic sales. First Europe takes export sales away from us now they are likely supplying our domestic market also.

[gregpet]

Isn't the CWB supposed to maximize returns for all farmers and not decide that the one who have sold into the pool will now capitalize on a higher price than the farmers that have not had an opportunity to participate?

[Hopperbin]

Exactly. Ian White has let me down immensely.

[Hopperbin]

The man needs to learn how to run a garbage truck so he can clean up after himself.

[Choice2U]

Burbert - Please do something out of character and answer one question. I'll try to keep your choices simple so you can just pick one. Is the CWB mandate to: 1. Maximize $ value per bushel? (eg. sell 10M bu x $8/bu = $80M which would require it to cut off a pool 1/2 way through the season without any advance notice leaving a very high carryout) 2. Sell all the grain that is grown at the best returns possible (eg. sell the full year's production of 20M bushels at $5/bu avg = $100M keeping an average carryout. All growers get the same price) 3. Maximize the total $ value of the crop (eg. sell only 18M bu (out of 20M production) x $6/bu = $108M which would push the carryout to a larger than average number)? Please pick one as they all have different implications to an individual farm. Herein is your answer as to why the CWB can never do anything right. WE DON'T KNOW ITS MANDATE. If it was to state its mandate or have a mission statement regarding the above then farmers could make some decisions as the season unfolds. The problem is that we have no way of knowing what the CWB plans to do from year to year so how do we protect our individual farms?

[charliep]

Going through email today after days away at Farmtech and see the CWB announced the initial payment "B Pool" feed barley at $103.50/tonne port or about $50/tonne ($1.10/bu). The PRO (Jan. 22) is $162/tonne or about $108/tonne local elevator ($2.35/bu).

With cashplus for malt barley, why isn't there a similar alternative feed barley? Better yet, have feed barley 100 % cash prices against sales under the guaranteed delivery contracts.