June 2011 Archives

And here are more thoughts from producers and one consultant about plans and comments made regarding changes to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Gerald in Alberta writes:

 “In your June 21 Blog regarding CWB and “the tribe has spoken” you stated: "There should be a whole team of people working for the board with expertise in marketing, price pooling, grain quality, processing, production and weather". Lee, who will pay for this whole team of people? Farmers complain now about cost of board when the cost of the CWB is spread across all wheat and barley marketed. And what about marketing programs like branding Canadian wheat, which benefits all wheat producers and is now entirely paid for by the CWB. Do you feel branding of wheat should 1. end 2. continue and be paid by checkoff (by CWB or another organization) from all wheat sold 3. continue and be paid only on wheat marketed through CWB, or 4. be paid by government or some other organization since benefits all farmers and all Canadians?”

Brian in Alberta writes:

“Your article “the tribe has spoken” hits the nail square on the head. It is time for the directors of the CWB to remember they were elected to manage the business affairs of the CWB and not let their personal agenda’s interfere with their job.

Unfortunately, the single desk supporters have always concentrated their efforts on preserving the single desk whether it was offering value to farmers or not. What they don’t understand is by delivering economic value to producers will ensure the preservation of the CWB. However, the economic studies they have done are so flawed that they have been mislead by their own data.

What we need is leadership and courage from these directors to move out and build a business plan that will bring economic value to those who choose to use them as their marketing agent. Unfortunately, all they can do is spout “doom and gloom” about what will happen when they are not there to protect us from the marketplace. Someone should tell them, that I as a producer, did not ask them to protect me from this environment. I do not feel threatened by the prospects of an open market, or the “big, bad, grain companies”.

The CWB is there to market grain, not advocate on my behalf or by lackers with my money without my consent or artificially promote the port of Churchill whether it gives financial benefit to all farmers in the designated are or not. The rhetoric we seem to be hearing is about jobs in Winnipeg and the threat to the port of Churchill. This is a Western Canadian issue, not confined to Manitoba. Every part of the value chain in the grain industry will survive if it offers economic value in a competitive and open market place. So if the Port of Churchill or the people working in Winnipeg contribute to this new economic model, these jobs will survive.

What everyone should be concentrating on is the job creation that will happen in a open market and an the positive atmosphere created that will attract investment. We will be moving to a true transparent and competitive market place where producers can finally manage their cash flow to meet their individual farm’s needs. This was not allowed to happen under the present system. What the single desk supporters don’t understand is that sometimes it is not about getting the highest price for their grain but about being able to deliver grain to meet their financial commitments. It is time for this Board (CWB) to show leadership and build a new plan to conduct business on a new commercial basis.

Thanks for your article Lee, it was refreshing.”

Jim in Alberta writes:

Lee…as one of the Lethbridge Correctional Center (13 farmers) alumni I couldn’t help but smile at your article "the tribe has spoken". I am now a senior farmer that is just as determined as ever to see intrusive government over-regulation ended. It remains a mystery to me why the socialists insist on having a vote on freedom.

Freedom to enjoy the fruit of ones labor is a principle that is as old as the civilized world. Check out this reference in the bible---Ecclesiastes 3;12 + 13,  5;18 + 19.  Keep up the good work. 

(Editor’s Note: In case your Bible was upstairs, I looked it up: E. 3:12: “I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. 13: That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God. And E. 5:18: This is what I have observed to be good: that it is appropriate for a person to eat, to drink and to find satisfaction in their toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given them—for this is their lot. 19:  Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil—this is a gift of God.”

Bob in Alberta writes:

“I read with interest your blog on Grainews about the Canadian Wheat Board. You did present the two sides from individuals who are in a position to either loose or gain from the changes. I am a nearly retired small farmer from the Calgary area.  I have a history to draw from and the CWB is in my opinion not a vehicle that made me money, quite the opposite in fact. Let me give you a couple of facts of what happened to me over my career.

One wet year we had a frost toward the end of the season. When starting to market this crop it was graded ergoty. Just after harvest no one would buy ergoty grain but the CWB and they would but as ergoty offering $1.40 per bushel. My sharp pencil showed a loss if sold this way through the board. I started my homework and found futures better and decided to find a good basis from an elevator company and sell on the open market. I set a price for a reasonable profit, signed the basis contract and put the grain on the open market. My offer was picked up with the condition I would deliver this grain in later summer of the next year. I now had a profit set up but needed to fix my cash flow. My accountant said to apply for an advance from the CWB. I looked over the contract as did my accountant and found I qualified even though I would be selling all my feed grains outside the board.

It took more than one letter to get this advance and only on part of my crop. As I sold feed barley to the local feeder I sent money to the Board to settle part of my advance. One problem I overlooked was the date of the advance final payment. I needed the money from my ergoty grain for final payment to be made to the Board four weeks before that delivery.

My delivery date on the wheat was four weeks after the end of the CWB year end. When realizing this slip up and talking to the Wheat Board by phone, I offered to pay interest on the advance for the four weeks extra I would need the money and until the wheat was delivered.

I was threatened with being charged for interest on all the payment regardless of what had been paid off and all for a complete year and was told they expected the wheat to be sold through the CWB and the money in their hands at their set date.  (Such friendly bureaucrats who serve the farmer).

Nothing in the contract that the I saw said marketing must be through the CWB. I took this story and the CWB threatening letter to the local elevator company who came to my rescue and let me deliver on the contract one month early, paying me for the grain and allowing me the cash flow to pay off the CWB advance at their date.

I now trust the large elevator line companies a hell of a lot more than the CWB. This line company saved me credit line charges among other things. You know, these are the big bad elevator companies NDPers can`t trust.

The CWB is bureaucracy and treat farmers the way that The Canada revenue agency does. They are not only sometimes threatening but with rules that do not help the farmer.  These rules rather perpetuates the CWB bureaucracy.

 My father went form a grain farmer to a mixed farm. This allowed him to make a small profit from two vertical steps in his operation. He grew feed grain for a small profit and this feed grain then went to his own small feedlot where he made a profit from feeding cattle. Vertical integration is how I rationalized his management model.

When I came back to the farm after my father was too ill to continue, I knew that my allergies (or hay fever) Ì had as a kid would act up if I had cattle and worked with their feed.  I decided to try marketing my own wheat through a small mill, selling the milled products into a niche market that was local (farmer`s markets).

I found to set up my own mill I would need to sell the wheat to the CWB and buy it back from the CWB even thought the wheat never left the farm. Also CWB purchase price was much lower that CWB selling price.  The difference was a transport charge as well as a pooling charge. This worked completely against my model and the profits I was trying to generate.

The CWB did not help me the farmer it so often claims it serves. This model of on-farm milling has been done successfully on a farm west of Bozeman, Montana. I was there in 2010 and it has expanded to mill the wheat from the neighbouring farms as well. This Montana mill also now has a bakery and coffee shop and lots of customers. My wife and I had to stand in line for a table to have a coffee and munchie. This is in a State that has a lower density of population than Alberta. Why is this so? They are in the USA and we are in Canada. Pity. Without that hopeful mill operation I have been forced to keep an off farm job for my whole career.

The CWB has to go from its present form to a form that supports the farmer. Pooling is not the answer unless you are socialist farmer who feels he will gain from his neighbours through pooling. You know, the kind of people who infer ``I want and you pay for it``.

The CWB only focuses on exports of wheat and malt barley. I made more money from peas as a crop and they were exported through the open market. This also means all people who work for the CWB in a management position are steeped in bureaucracy and must be fired for the board to thrive.”

And marketing consultant Ron Frost of Calgary writes:

“The topic of the CWB monopoly is very polarized with some believing the CWB adds value with a monopoly marketing structure, while others like myself grew varieties of wheat and barley in the 1980’s to avoid the bureaucratic anchor they represent where pooled, “average” prices just didn’t seem to be an acceptably high target. Years later I am not involved in production first hand, but I still strive to assist producers achieve above average prices whether it be canola or the PRO’s through the Board that are truly a poor alternative to a true open market mechanism that many desire.  

In Mr. Oberg’s comments he seems to be of the opinion that there is no way for the CWB to survive in a dual marketing structure, yet the government of Canada in the 1935 CWB Act created a structure that was voluntary, not mandatory. In 1943 without a farmer vote (point) that structure was changed to mandatory, it was legislated by the federal government of Canada. It literally took the dire situation of WWII to force the Canadian government to remove the farmers’ rights and freedoms to market their grain to whomever they chose in the 1940’s. The return of those rights and freedoms through legislation is long overdue.  

He stated in his speech at the Western Canadian Farm progress show, “Since the CWB is the marketing structure for farmers – not a grain company – it has no assets. Under the CWB act it is not allowed to own real assets. It has no grain handling infrastructure, no capital base for borrowing money or financing its operations. It exists by virtue of legislation and by the existence of government financial guarantees.” Let’s stop right there, so what in the world is he as a director for the CWB doing going out and buying ships? Further before he gets too high and mighty it’s all up to farmers what about the hundreds of millions of dollars the Canadian taxpayer have footed over past years to cover initial price deficits. Doesn’t that kind of make it every Canadian taxpayers business and as the representative of every Canadian taxpayer the government of Canada has the right to change the laws that govern the CWB as it has done on many occasions over the past decades.   

The CWB existed from the mid-1930s to 1943 in a voluntary structure, so his fear mongering that it cannot exist in any format other than a monopoly has zero basis. In today’s business environment the telecommunications industry is a prime example where a few companies own the infrastructure, while many “agents” provide services through that network alongside the infrastructure owners. They not only survive, many of these companies are thriving without the burden of bricks and mortar, so why is it that he can’t see a useful and valuable role for the CWB in a similar situation. You are correct the debate of the CWB role after single desk will also be a topic of heated debates as everyone offers diverse views.

In my opinion what must change is that the CWB will require individuals at the helm that are entrepreneurial thinkers that seek out opportunities and solutions as they carve out their niche within the new environment and given Mr. Oberg’s comments he may not be the best person for that position. Just my 2 cents worth.”

www.thefrostforecast.com

Lee Hart is a field editor for Grainews in Calgary, Contact him at 403-592-1964 or by email at lee@fbcpublishing.com

The final communiqué from the first annual G-3 Agricultural Summit held at Lumsden, Saskatchewan last week, got over shadowed by media attention to the new Sakundiak/Meridan unloading auger, so I felt it necessary to draw specific attention to this meeting, which will likely change agriculture as you know it.

The G-3 leaders as none of you will know, are the three Grainews (G) editors Lyndsey Smith, editor, Scott Garvey, machinery editor and Lee Hart, field editor. (Some have referred to us as The Three Wise Men (girl) and to others we are affectionately known as Larry, Curly and Moe). We met for dinner in the quiet, little Qu`Appelle Valley community of Lumsden, just outside of Regina. Security was very light – although we did have a retired RCMP officer in our midst for crowd control in case fans or protestors showed up. They didn’t.

After a great steak dinner, the business session hammered out these conclusions:

1. Western Canadian farms and machinery are getting too big. No one needs a 5000 bushel seed cart behind a 200 foot wide air drill.
2. Longhorn cattle are the best cattle for all purposes in all situations. They are docile, easy keepers, have tender meat and compact frames. If you are going away for the weekend or a quick shopping trip to Walmart, you can get several in the box of a pickup truck and take them with you. (Just don’t let your wife make pets out them or you’ll never be able to get rid of them.)
3. No future machinery company buy-outs will be allowed. It is getting too difficult to keep track of who makes what machinery anymore since companies keep buying out other companies and may or may not change the name and/or colours.
4. All grain farmers should be using manure to grow crops.
5.  It is hoped the Canadian Wheat Board issue gets resolved soon, one way or the other. This has been a very, very long-running story.
6. If you are looking for a great place to stay in the greater-Regina area, the Eclectic Bed and Breakfast in Lumsden (www.lumsdenvalleyantiquesbookscollectibles.ca) is a great place, unless you are trying to lose weight, then stay away. (I wish my wife would leave apple pie on my bed stand at night, it might help resolve a lot of long-standing conflicts.)
7. Natural childbirth is a good thing.
8. And finally, a six-inch store-bought Turtle cake makes an excellent dessert, although personally I think the serving pieces could have been a little bigger.

And there we have it. All problems solved.

SUMMIT BACKGROUNDER

With an age range from early 30s to late 50s (I’m not ready to say sixty yet), the G-3 reflect thinking of several generations. Careers and interest of the G-3 over the years have been diverse, but we all have farm backgrounds — we grew up with manure squishing between our toes (at least I did, maybe the rest wore shoes in the summer). Besides the summit, we had gathered in Saskatchewan to attend the Farm Progress Show in Regina.

As progressive and open minded as we are, at times we may have sounded like a bunch of organic farmers in some bucolic community in the French countryside, rather than hardnosed ag journalists smack in the middle of the soggy Canadian prairie grain belt.

Some of the questions that got the conversation going:  Are farms getting too big? Is bigger better? Are farmers relying too much on “purchased” inputs rather than natural/organic nutrients?

What happens to smaller or new farmers who may want to expand? At one time criticism was leveled at Hutterites for buying farms and pricing land out of reach, now it’s the guy down the road who needs another two or three sections so he has room to turn his 200 foot wide air drill and 5000 bushel seed cart.

Where is size headed?

And just those few questions lead to a wide-ranging discussion that also included natural childbirths, RCMP training policy, hockey riots in Vancouver, politics, and the high cost of establishing a goat farm. Fortunately, we are well informed on all these topics.

An important point to be made, agricultural editors aren’t just one-dimensional people who sit around discussing grammar and spelling — although that is fun. No, we jump right in and try to fix the industry we are working in.

It’s a good thing we are there because I don’t think farmers would figure this stuff out for themselves.

Lee Hart is a field editor for Grainews in Calgary, Contact him at 403-592-1964 or by email at lee@fbcpublishing.com

I went through the mountain of comments I received on a couple recent blogs dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board (okay so far there have been five, but I go for quality and not quantity).

Following the first blog June 20, “The Canadian Wheat Board needs to realize the tribe has spoken”:

Richard writes: “The board is driven by their philosophy and not the practical realities you so well describe. Remember that, as the good judge pointed out, the CWB does not have a duty of care for farmers in the Designated Area.”

Tim writes – “Nicely said. Thanks”

And Bernie in Manitoba sent an email with these thoughts: 

“1. The wheat board is important to the small farmer who does not own a number of super Bs — in other words has only a small amount of wheat and does not have the big trucks to deliver.

2. In our area we grow only approx 10 per cent of our crops that the CWB would market!

3. We need the CWB to market our grain.  Most of the anti wheat board producers will only discover prices and not market grain. The US market is the only market that they are seeing.

4. The Americans, especially the elevators along the border are somewhat uncomfortable because they are expecting an influx of Canadian wheat.  Will the US put an embargo on our grain just like they have done on hogs for many years, finally COOL has stuck for a longer period, and lumber.  Even though they have all been proven illegal they have done the job for the Americans.

5. What if the our Cdn dollar value increases?

6. The wheat board cannot exist in an open market, because they have no infrastructure.

7. I find that the government using the dismantling of the CWB as their election platform, spending so much time on the issue, some what scary. Are there not bigger issues for them to deal with?  I do not appreciate the government being on a mission.  They are listening only to the people who felt they do not need the organization, not to the people that really need it. That is scary!

Conclusion:

If we look at the pork marketing board demise in Manitoba: the individual producers are losing approx 10 per cent of the market value in comparison to prior times.  The multi-nationals, or the two totally vertically producers, Hylife and Maple Leaf, are in total control. What about the American chicken meat market?  Tyson Foods and three other processors, each one producing four times the meat that all of Canada does, control our Canadian market.

The wheat board can provide value to the farmers  but  the internal organization should be revamped.  I think the question is; is the CWB changeable? The Government cannot implement change because it is a prime example of bureaucratic malfunction.”

And of course, after that first blog, Maureen Fitzhenry, communications manager for the Canadian Wheat Board suggested it might be useful if I  actually read CWB chairman Allen Oberg’s speech, which I did do. Thanks Maureen….

Following my second column, June 22 “Further reflections on the CWB future

Ann writes: “CWB's role in an open market will be to roll over and die. I don't think the government has provided any hint of what sort of help it will provide the CWB to transition. Will there be financial or regulatory help? I doubt it. What's left is that farmers must decide if they want to form a new grain company. Why would anyone want to take that risk? Especially when they are starting from nothing. If I'm a farmer, I'll take the easy road and sell to the first grain company that will take my product. I'm not going to waste my time, energy and money on an unproven proposition such as a voluntary CWB. They might as well start their own discount chain and go up against Walmart. Yes, farmers will soon have the marketing freedom to sell to the grain company of their choice. The world will go on, but it will go on without the CWB.”

And Stewart from Southern Alberta, who may be in line as my proofreader at Grainews, noticed I spelled the word dessert instead of desert. (I have done that before, so it is obvious where my head is at, but I did correct it).

But, Stewart writes: “Lee, an interesting typo in the third last paragraph, "post-monopoly dessert" Hmmm? It could have been intended to read "desert", but maybe it will actually be dessert. Probably a lot of chewing and some regurgitating on the main course though, of coarse!”

Lee Hart is a field editor for Grainews in Calgary, Contact him at 403-592-1964 or by email at lee@fbcpublishing.com

-30- 

Nothing bugs me more than when facts and a good counter-argument conflict with or confuse my views. Does that spoil a party or what?

I’m not saying that after now reading Allen Oberg’s speech on what’s ahead for the Canadian Wheat Board reverses my thoughts from a couple days ago (i.e. June 20 blog – Canadian Wheat Board needs to realize the tribe has spoken), but it does give me cause to think further. Maureen Fitzhenry, communications manager for the CWB suggested that if I actually read the speech I might be better informed.

The whole speech can be found on the CWB website or by clicking this link:

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsroom/releases/2011/news_release.jsp?news=061611.jsp#speech

And following are some important statements by Oberg, within that speech:

“Removing the CWB's single desk structure affects farmers more than anyone else. And the repercussions will be huge.

That is a fact. Let's look at some more facts.

            Fact: The CWB is the single desk. It is a marketing structure. Its whole premise... its whole value proposition... is built upon the concept that farmers benefit from marketing our grain together, as one.

            Fact: Since the CWB is a marketing structure for farmers - not a grain company -- it has no assets. Under the CWB Act, it is not allowed to own real assets. It has no grain-handling infrastructure, no capital base for borrowing money or financing its operations. It exists by virtue of legislation and by the existence of government financial guarantees.

            Fact: If the CWB were to continue its grain-marketing role in an open market, it would need to operate as a grain company. A grain company that would need to rely on competing grain companies in order to carry out its business. Companies like Viterra, Cargill, Richardson, right now, are service providers or agents to the CWB. In an open market, they become its competitors. And the CWB becomes the new kid on the block... . a rather small kid, I might add - provided it obtains any assets at all. You don't need to be an agricultural economist to see how this would play out in the long term.

Let me put this another way: It is August 1, 2012. You want to deliver grain to the CWB. How will you do it? You will drive to your local elevator, which is now competing with the CWB. This elevator is run by a company with no incentive and no requirement to handle CWB grain. You won't be able to deliver it to the CWB directly, because it has no facilities.

Those are some of the realities. Now, let's look at some of the myths.

            Myth number one: "If the CWB is so good at what it does, it could compete and survive."

I hear that one a lot. I hope you can see from the facts I've just shared, that this comment doesn't make much sense. It's not a matter of being good at your job. If you have no assets and no facilities... if you are reliant on your competitors to stay in business... you're not going to survive.

            Myth number two: "Farmers who support the CWB would stay with the CWB."

I assume this refers to participation in a voluntary pooling system. I don't know about you, but I'm in the business of farming to make money. I believe the pools make me the most money over the long term. That's why I like them. But I also know that pools don't work very well on a voluntary basis. Pools needs to have reasonable certainty that they can source the grain needed to fulfill the sales contracts they make. And, when markets are rising, not all farmers are going to put their commitment to the pool ahead of taking a higher immediate spot price. That makes risk-management tricky.

            Myth number three: "If a voluntary CWB doesn't work, it's because the CWB itself has refused to change."

That one is a nifty turn of the tables.

Let me first remind you that the CWB is the single desk. There is a law - at least for now - that requires the CWB be structured as a single desk and that its staff carry out their duties under that mandate. There is a board of directors who govern the CWB, mainly comprised of elected farmers like me, who believe in the merits of the single desk.

For these reasons the CWB must conduct its business as a single desk and support the single desk. But it does not have its head in the sand. There have been huge changes in recent years, particularly when farmers took over its governance in 1999. The Wheat Board of today would be barely recognizable to the farmers of 1943...or even to those of 1996, for that matter.”

Okay, so now I have read that and will think on it.  But, at the same time I can flip over to another website where Brenda Tjaden Lepp, a long-time Winnipeg-based grain marketer and policy analyst with a master’s degree in agriculture economics also had posted some thoughts on the CWB future. Lepp is co-founder and chief analysts of FarmLink Marketing Solutions (www.farmlinksolutions.ca ). Here in part are her thoughts:

Q: What will we do now? 
A: “Don’t be scared. It’s actually not that hard or complicated. FarmLink has four analysts with lots of trading experience, and a combined deep understanding of all the relevant forces impacting wheat, durum and barley marketing decisions. We’re not worried about it; in fact, we’re expecting a lot less paperwork and clearer price signals, making it easier to make smart marketing decisions.”


Q: We’re losing such a valuable resource. A: 
“Yes, but only on three crops. The costs of marketing the others in your crop mix have been yours to bear and yours to manage all along. No, private companies such as consultants, grain handlers and brokers aren’t free, but neither was the work the CWB did.”


Q: What will become of the CWB without its monopoly? A: 
“Farmers need to communicate, to the CWB and to government, what about the organization has value, and what help they need in marketing crops in the future:
1. Trade advocacy and market development efforts, similar to Pulse Canada or the Canola Council.
2. Hands-on assistance and/or a trusted third party to help with the hard work of marketing grain.
3. An alternative to marketing through multinational grain companies. It will take a lot of work and creativity, but the CWB is in a good position to offer this in a post-monopoly environment.”

Okay, so now I have read that, too, and will think on it. Granted an underlying motive of Lepp’s comments maybe to draw more clients to her prairie wide grain marketing services. FarmLink and other marketing companies are all there to help lead producers across the post-monopoly desert. But at the same time she makes the point, while things may or will change — it will be different — but grain will get marketed after August 2012.

I am fearing now that the discussion/debate over what role the CWB will play in an open marketing structure may be as polarized as the debate over whether there should be an open market in the first place.

With a bit of time I could sort this all out, but I just had a call from the United Nations and they want me to come up with a sure fire solution for world peace, so I will be working on that this week. It’s easier and it pays better too.

Lee Hart is a field editor for Grainews in Calgary, Contact him at 403-592-1964 or by email at lee@fbcpublishing.com

-30- 

Canadian Wheat Board chair Allan Oberg may need a trip to the woodshed to help him move forward with his thinking on CWB reform, rather than dwell on the 75-year-old past.

I didn’t hear Oberg’s speech to Canadian Wheat Board “supporters” at the Farm Progress Show in Regina last week, but I did watch his nine-minute media question and answer period a few minutes later. It can be viewed on-line at realagriculture.com

The fact is, following the May 2 federal election the question now facing farmers and the board is not whether there should be a dual marketing system for Canadian wheat, but what role will the Canadian Wheat Board play in a new open marketing structure?

Oberg’s main interest appears to be in maintaining the status quo, somehow turning back the political clock, running some sort of Hail Mary pass that will stop the process that has already been set in motion. And I don’t see that happening.

When the chairman suggests the dual marketing question should be put to a vote of producers, my reaction is for god’s sake, how much more debate and discussion does this topic need? It has been an issue for the 25 years that I have been talking to farmers and I dare say it was coffee shop discussion long before that.

I may not have the highest germ test in the seed batch, especially when it comes to marketing issues, but I believe there are a couple of realities here.

First, the sun will come up tomorrow. And second, Western Canadian farmers will be growing and marketing wheat 20, 30 and 50 years from now whether the Canadian Wheat Board exists or not.

With the results of the federal election clearly based on a platform that included Canadian Wheat Board reform, this discussion is over. I believe the board now has one of three choices — lead, follow or get out of the way.

I haven’t heard anyone say the board should be dismantled. In fact, it is just the opposite. Politicians, economists and marketing specialist have all said they see a system where the board can contribute its expertise in a valuable role in new open market. It will be a different role, but still a valuable role, that could protect the interests of producers who prefer board services.

There should be a whole team of people working for the board with expertise in marketing, price pooling, grain quality, processing, production and weather. If that expertise cannot be reconfigured into some new marketing structure in an open market, it will be due to a lack of will and not a lack of opportunity.

I would hate to think at such an important juncture of Canadian agriculture that human defects such as fear, ego, false pride, self-centeredness and closed-mindedness would imperial this process of change. If there is one thing Western Canadian farmers have done over the past 50 years is adapt to changes in crop production and marketing. What is different now? Somehow canola gets from a seed in the ground to a four-litre jug of oil in my pantry and I don’t see any canola marketing board. 

I get the impression the CWB frigate is sailing into harbor with the captain on the bridge declaring this vessel cannot be retrofitted —  we are nothing without the monopoly. Is the board prepared to sink this ship with all hands on deck?

There is a risk that might happen. But, the current board has to keep in mind if the ship does go down, it will be its hand on the self destruct button and not the hand of the federal government, and not the collective hand of farmers who simply want the chance to market their own grain.

Lee Hart is a field editor for Grainews in Calgary, Contact him at 403-592-1964 or by email at lee@fbcpublishing.com

-30-

The organization that has been supporting development of new wheat and barley varieties in Western Canada for 20 years is looking for a new executive director.

The Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF) based in Saskatoon hopes to have a short list of candidates to consider by early July, says board chairman Keith Degenhardt. And WGRF hopes to have a new person in the position previously held by Lanette Kuchenski by August.

Kuchenski, pictured left,  has been executive director since 2003, taking over the post from Lorence Peterson. She resigned at the end of April 2011, after returning to job following maternity leave in 2010.

Degenhardt, long time chairman of the board, who farms at Hugenden in east-central Alberta (south of Wainwright), says there were a few factors which contributed to Kuchenski’s decision to resign.

There had been a number of changes in the WGRF program during the time Kuchenski was on leave. One major change was an expansion of programs and research contracts with a windfall of millions of dollars directed toward WGRF from what is known as overcharges to farmers under the federal railway revenue cap. The Canadian Transportation Agency ruled a few years ago that CN Rail had exceeded its revenue cap for grain movement. After a period of appeals, that decision made about $70 million in repayments available to WGRF for research purposes.

“With the expansion of programs, in many respects, it was a whole new Western Grains Research Foundation,” says Degenhardt. “Anyone who knows Lanette knows that she gives 150 per cent to the job. I think upon returning to work, with all the changes and now with two small children at home, she just felt she wanted a career that would also give her more time with her family. We are sorry to see her go.”

Terry Scott, a former deputy minister of Saskatchewan Agriculture, who operates his own TESCO Consulting company, came on board as acting executive director during Kuchenski’s leave and will remain in that position until a new executive director is hired.

The WGRF program for 2011 will see between $5 and 6 million invested in a wide range of crop development projects.

From check-off funds directed to WGRF about $4.2 million will be invested in wheat breeding projects undertaken by agencies that include Agriculture Canada, University of Saskatchewan, University of Manitoba, University of Alberta and Alberta Agriculture.

Another $670,000 in check-off funds will go toward barley breeding programs at Agriculture Canada and Saskatchewan’s Crop Development Centre.

From the WGRF Endowment Funds, which includes the rail overpayment dollars, another $660,000 is being invested in 16 new and ongoing research projects on all types of crop research, and another $760,000 is being invested in a Directed Research Program called a breeding tool initiative. WGRF has made a $3.8 million commitment to this over the next five years, to update the genomic technology used by plant breeders.

Lee Hart is a field editor for Grainews in Calgary, Contact him at 403-592-1964 or by email at lee@fbcpublishing.com

-30-