Sorry for the delay here. Freezing rain took out the power for 12 hours.
Chilled calf to deal with. I have a litany of excuses....
Column # 667 Ask Me No Questions I'll Tell You No Lies 21/04/08
Few things are as frustrating to parents of teenagers as their
children's communication skills. Or lack thereof. Having participated in
the rearing of 5 teenagers, I've been on the receiving end of my share
of monosyllabic grunts.
"Have you done your homework?"
"Uhnnn."
Even worse for parental blood pressure is the answer that never happens.
"When are you going to get off your duff and do your chores?" Silence.
The only discernible response is a slightly more frantic blur of finger
and thumb remorselessly pushing buttons, as eyes remain glued to the
television.
Of course I would never admit to the near uncontrollable urge to slap
someone up the side of the head. (Can the welfare still come and take
your kids when they're grown up and gone?)
There are many similarities between politicians and teenagers, most of
them centering on fabrication and a ceaseless focus on whether the
outcome of any situation will be good for me personally. Politicians and
kids share another similarity. It's the ability to completely ignore a
legitimate question, as if the questioner were one of those irritating
800 area code calls that we don't answer when they appear on our phone.
How many newspaper articles end with "the government has made no
response to the request"? How many radio interviews conclude with "no
one was available for comment"? For someone with a valid and important
question, it can be infuriating and disheartening.
Take, for example, the plight of hog producers in Canada. Repeated
requests for aid early this year were met with silence. It looked as if
governments had decided to take the course of letting the chips fall
where they would as far as hogs were concerned. Saskatchewan Minister of
Agriculture, after announcing a loan program, (gee, more debt, thanks a
lot) declared that his government had done all it could. The federal
government finally decided its assistance would be to kill as many sows
and boars are producers were willing to part with.
Right now, OmniTrax, the American company operating the rail line to
Churchill, must be feeling a similar frustration. OmniTrax is watching
the federal government preside over the chopping up of the fleet of
aluminum hopper cars. While the cars are pretty much obsolete for
hauling grain on Canada's mainline railways, due to limited capacity,
they might fit into the local hauling of products on the Bay line.
However, the dismembering continues and the federal government appears
to be ignoring OmniTrax's request for dialogue on the cars.
Beef producers know their own frustration with government silence.
Restrictions on the disposal of Specified Risk Materials add as much as
$80 to cost of slaughter and processing for a beef animal in Canada.
These are costs American packers do not bear, since their regulations
are much less strict. This cost puts Canadian packers at risk, since the
market in which they compete is largely continental. Continued requests
for the government to deal with a problem that is beyond industry's
ability to control have been met with little acknowledgement.
Government communications, of course, are not about facts or truth. They
are about spin. Unfortunately, this appears to be true of most
governments most of the time. If government thinks the public wouldn't
like the answer to a question, better to remain silent. One place this
may not work is in the House of Commons. However, when confronted with a
question that you can't avoid, politicians can still take another
course. Don't answer the question asked, answer some other question.
This was the situation facing Liberal MP Wayne Easter on April 8. Easter
asked Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon if the government intended to
conduct a full review of railway costs. Cannon's response must have left
Easter scratching his head. It went like this, "One of the first
initiatives we took was to stop the sale of the hopper cars (to
farmers). It was an excellent decision because it was something the
marketplace wanted. ...it was a way of diminishing and reducing costs to
the farmer."
It makes me think even politicians in the House of Commons must
occasionally want to slap someone up the side of the head.
(c) Paul Beingessner
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Piglet Kill Proposed to Solve Hog Woes 14/04/08
Column # 666 Piglet Kill Proposed to Solve Hog Woes 14/04/08
In virtually every farming enterprise, farms are getting larger. One
factor that has driven this is the ever-declining value of the
commodities farms produce. In constant dollars, the value of farm
products, whether grain, livestock or Christmas tree has not kept up
with every other cost farmers face. Farmers have survived by producing
more of those products per farm. So farms get bigger and rural
communities smaller.
If production were simply a matter of management, good farmers would
survive by getting larger. The less productive would fall by the
wayside. But it isn't that simple. A major reason is the incredible
unpredictability of both weather and prices. If you're losing money due
to low prices or poor production, being big is likely a greater problem
than being small.
The other problem with bigness is that everyone is on the same
bandwagon. The result is the consolidation of grain companies, chemical
and seed companies, machinery manufacturers and even input retailers.
Even the biggest farmer is no match for a Monsanto, Cargill or CP.
Nowhere can the problems of bigness be more clearly seen than in the hog
industry. At some point in the last century, governments and policy
makers became convinced there was an unlimited market in the world for
pigs. The rational was that as poorer countries developed, meat
consumption would rise, and since hogs and chickens are cheaper to raise
than cattle, they would be the ones in greatest demand. Policy makers
began to push hog production. Provincial governments all had their own
units within their departments of agriculture dedicated largely to
increasing the number of hogs produced in the province. Pigs would eat
the cheap feed grains. Pigs, which can breed like rabbits, could build
populations rapidly. Canadian pigs would be travelling the world. Raise
enough pigs and the processing facilities would come.
There were several problems with the whole scenario. Large hog barns
could indeed produce hogs cheaply. So cheaply, in fact, that soon small
producers were unable to cope with the ever-falling prices. They did
what hog producers have always done when markets fell. They went out of
pigs. The large ones left didn't respond to market signals in the same
way. They couldn't afford to shut down or limit production, thus
ensuring perpetually low prices. (Truth be told, low hog prices have
hurt the beef industry as well, as hogs compete in the supermarket with
beef and limit its price.)
As for Canadian pigs travelling the world, it turned out most of them
only made it to the U.S. As in the beef industry, Canada became fixated
on selling our pigs to a country swimming in pigs itself. That we were
able to do so was largely because of our low dollar, not some mythical
notion of western Canada as the "lowest cost producer".
If current and past hog prices weren't enough to make you weep, the
impending closure of the American border to hogs due to Country of
Origin Labelling (COOL) should have hog producers everywhere sobbing.
Labelling hogs as products of somewhere other than the U.S. is expected
to lower their value, so American slaughter plants have also said they
will not slaughter Canadian hogs under COOL. Just the fact that COOL
appears to be coming this fall has whacked Manitoba's isowean producers
on the snout. Isoweans are early-weaned piglets, many of which are
finished in the U.S. Those for sale now might not finish before COOL is
implemented, so some American finishers have broken contracts to buy
Manitoba piglets. Prices for isoweans have dropped as much as 90
percent.
Canada now has a program to pay hog producers to kill sows and boars and
stop producing pigs. Manitoba producers are calling for a similar
program to kill piglets, saying a 4 percent reduction in supply would
help to increase prices.
The entire situation is both sad and revolting, especially the waste of
good food and the destruction of baby animals. The heyday of this latest
surge in the hog industry lasted scarcely more than a decade for many
producers. Some of the earliest barns were closing their doors due to
bankruptcy as the last barns were being built. Whatever the outcome,
there will be a major correction in hog numbers, especially in western
Canada.
No one should be surprised. The market for pigs in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan is for about 300,000 hogs per year. We are producing five
million, and trying to export most of the surplus to the U.S., a country
that is awash in hogs itself, and remarkably protectionist. It is as
absurd as Canadian farmers who think that without the CWB, we could pour
our grain into the American's premium priced domestic market.
The ultimate irony is that while the industry is near collapse,
Manitoba's hog producers are up in arms because the provincial
government won't allow any new hogs barns to be built due to
environmental concerns.
So, let's tally it up.
At one time we had a hog industry with thousands of small players who
sold to a variety of packing plants. These farmers responded to market
signals and were able to move in and out of the industry because their
capital investment was often small and they were diversified. Hog prices
were low, so focus on the grain side. Hogs rise, re-open the barn.
Now we have government subsidies to kill pigs large and small and
dispose of them. Packing plants closing in western Canada while the hog
supply grows. Small producers all driven out of the business. A bunch of
much fancier empty barns than the last time this happened. And
government agencies that still have a mandate, I'll bet you anything, to
expand the hog industry in western Canada.
They say pigs are the smartest animal in the barnyard. I'm beginning to
think they could well be smarter than a lot of humans.
In virtually every farming enterprise, farms are getting larger. One
factor that has driven this is the ever-declining value of the
commodities farms produce. In constant dollars, the value of farm
products, whether grain, livestock or Christmas tree has not kept up
with every other cost farmers face. Farmers have survived by producing
more of those products per farm. So farms get bigger and rural
communities smaller.
If production were simply a matter of management, good farmers would
survive by getting larger. The less productive would fall by the
wayside. But it isn't that simple. A major reason is the incredible
unpredictability of both weather and prices. If you're losing money due
to low prices or poor production, being big is likely a greater problem
than being small.
The other problem with bigness is that everyone is on the same
bandwagon. The result is the consolidation of grain companies, chemical
and seed companies, machinery manufacturers and even input retailers.
Even the biggest farmer is no match for a Monsanto, Cargill or CP.
Nowhere can the problems of bigness be more clearly seen than in the hog
industry. At some point in the last century, governments and policy
makers became convinced there was an unlimited market in the world for
pigs. The rational was that as poorer countries developed, meat
consumption would rise, and since hogs and chickens are cheaper to raise
than cattle, they would be the ones in greatest demand. Policy makers
began to push hog production. Provincial governments all had their own
units within their departments of agriculture dedicated largely to
increasing the number of hogs produced in the province. Pigs would eat
the cheap feed grains. Pigs, which can breed like rabbits, could build
populations rapidly. Canadian pigs would be travelling the world. Raise
enough pigs and the processing facilities would come.
There were several problems with the whole scenario. Large hog barns
could indeed produce hogs cheaply. So cheaply, in fact, that soon small
producers were unable to cope with the ever-falling prices. They did
what hog producers have always done when markets fell. They went out of
pigs. The large ones left didn't respond to market signals in the same
way. They couldn't afford to shut down or limit production, thus
ensuring perpetually low prices. (Truth be told, low hog prices have
hurt the beef industry as well, as hogs compete in the supermarket with
beef and limit its price.)
As for Canadian pigs travelling the world, it turned out most of them
only made it to the U.S. As in the beef industry, Canada became fixated
on selling our pigs to a country swimming in pigs itself. That we were
able to do so was largely because of our low dollar, not some mythical
notion of western Canada as the "lowest cost producer".
If current and past hog prices weren't enough to make you weep, the
impending closure of the American border to hogs due to Country of
Origin Labelling (COOL) should have hog producers everywhere sobbing.
Labelling hogs as products of somewhere other than the U.S. is expected
to lower their value, so American slaughter plants have also said they
will not slaughter Canadian hogs under COOL. Just the fact that COOL
appears to be coming this fall has whacked Manitoba's isowean producers
on the snout. Isoweans are early-weaned piglets, many of which are
finished in the U.S. Those for sale now might not finish before COOL is
implemented, so some American finishers have broken contracts to buy
Manitoba piglets. Prices for isoweans have dropped as much as 90
percent.
Canada now has a program to pay hog producers to kill sows and boars and
stop producing pigs. Manitoba producers are calling for a similar
program to kill piglets, saying a 4 percent reduction in supply would
help to increase prices.
The entire situation is both sad and revolting, especially the waste of
good food and the destruction of baby animals. The heyday of this latest
surge in the hog industry lasted scarcely more than a decade for many
producers. Some of the earliest barns were closing their doors due to
bankruptcy as the last barns were being built. Whatever the outcome,
there will be a major correction in hog numbers, especially in western
Canada.
No one should be surprised. The market for pigs in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan is for about 300,000 hogs per year. We are producing five
million, and trying to export most of the surplus to the U.S., a country
that is awash in hogs itself, and remarkably protectionist. It is as
absurd as Canadian farmers who think that without the CWB, we could pour
our grain into the American's premium priced domestic market.
The ultimate irony is that while the industry is near collapse,
Manitoba's hog producers are up in arms because the provincial
government won't allow any new hogs barns to be built due to
environmental concerns.
So, let's tally it up.
At one time we had a hog industry with thousands of small players who
sold to a variety of packing plants. These farmers responded to market
signals and were able to move in and out of the industry because their
capital investment was often small and they were diversified. Hog prices
were low, so focus on the grain side. Hogs rise, re-open the barn.
Now we have government subsidies to kill pigs large and small and
dispose of them. Packing plants closing in western Canada while the hog
supply grows. Small producers all driven out of the business. A bunch of
much fancier empty barns than the last time this happened. And
government agencies that still have a mandate, I'll bet you anything, to
expand the hog industry in western Canada.
They say pigs are the smartest animal in the barnyard. I'm beginning to
think they could well be smarter than a lot of humans.
Life Can Be a Bummer 07/04/08
Column # 665 Life Can Be a Bummer 07/04/08
The subject matter for this story might seem a bit indelicate, but here
goes. We had a lamb born on the farm this year without a bum. Or, to put
it in language that might make it past the censor, it lacked an anal
opening.
As you can image, this is not good news for the lamb. Sheep are prone to
any number of deformities - cleft palates, missing eyes, spinal
deformations, and yes, absent orifices. The usual remedy to such
problems is a swift departure to lamb heaven at the hands of the
shepherd.
Our lamb was luckier, due to my reluctance to whack tiny bleating
creatures on the head, especially when they appear lively and happy,
with the innocence only a lamb can project. So when I noticed the half
day-old lamb lying on its side and straining in obvious discomfort, and
an inspection quickly revealed not even a trace of a rectal aperture, I
called my vet to seek counsel.
His outlook was gloomy. If the defect was severe enough, it seemed the
lamb might not even have a properly developed intestine. If so, it would
be dead by morning. If it were still alive, he could look at it then,
assuring me that it would be uncomfortable but not in a great deal of
pain.
At least the delay until morning would take part of the decision out of
my hands. If the lamb died, such was life. If it lived, I still had to
justify to myself the cost of the procedure, which I was pretty sure
would at least equal the value of the lamb full grown at market time.
As the lamb's luck would have it, she made it easily through the night.
I justified the decision to make the 40 kilometer trip to the vet by
hoping fervently that a small and simple, hence inexpensive incision
would right the matter.
Well, not quite. It turned out there was a quarter inch of tissue
between the lamb's smooth backside and his anal muscle. An incision
would simply grow shut. My vet's solution was to pull the anal tissue
forward and suture it to the outside. It was some pretty delicate and
nifty work. But it wasn't simple. A couple x-rays, some medication, it
all came to a bill for $140. Not much chance of making money on that
lamb. For the lamb, at least, it was a happy ending. She never looked
back and four weeks later I can't pick her out of the crowd.
It probably wasn't a real smart decision, and I likely wouldn't do it
again, despite my relatively soft heart. A livestock farmer can't afford
too many kind gestures these days if they cost money. The sad fact is
that today's livestock prices, and those of the last few years, mean
most farmers visit the vet only in extreme circumstances. The results
are sometimes not what farmers who generally love their animals would
really like.
Sheep may be an extreme example of this. There is almost nothing you can
take a single animal to the vet for that won't result in a bill greater
than the animal's value. Prolapsed uterus? We replace it ourselves, and
if we can't make it stay, we put the animal down. Impossibly large lamb
or a cervix that won't dilate? A caesarean is far too costly. Better, as
one vet advised me, to shoot the ewe and attempt to extract the lamb
alive afterwards. (It worked.)
The same applies to cattle, though there is of course more room to spend
money and still come out okay. Or, at least there was prior to the
collapse of the calf market last fall. More and more, farmers are
treating ailments that they would formerly have taken to a vet. If their
treatments fail, the cheapest alternative may be to put the animal down.
The problem is not with the rates rural veterinarians charge. They work
long hard hours and few make their fortune and retire early. The problem
is that the value of livestock has failed drastically to keep up with
the cost of living, or any other cost.
As I said earlier, no farmer wants to work outside his comfort zone with
animals. Nor does he want to put down an animal because routine
procedures are too costly to contemplate. Yet, there is no readily
discernible solution to this dilemma. Livestock prices will never move
in lock step with the cost of human labour or other inputs. The history
of modern agriculture is that prices for farm commodities have steadily
declined, relative to all other costs. Present government policies and
market trends don't appear likely to change that.
A partial solution to this sorry situation would be for governments to
financially assist rural vet clinics. If they could afford to lower
rates, farmers could afford to use them more. This would likely yield
greater returns to farmers and their communities than many of the
"value-added" schemes that garner government support. It should also
make the animal welfare folks happy. And it would keep life for lambs
like mine from being a real bummer.
The subject matter for this story might seem a bit indelicate, but here
goes. We had a lamb born on the farm this year without a bum. Or, to put
it in language that might make it past the censor, it lacked an anal
opening.
As you can image, this is not good news for the lamb. Sheep are prone to
any number of deformities - cleft palates, missing eyes, spinal
deformations, and yes, absent orifices. The usual remedy to such
problems is a swift departure to lamb heaven at the hands of the
shepherd.
Our lamb was luckier, due to my reluctance to whack tiny bleating
creatures on the head, especially when they appear lively and happy,
with the innocence only a lamb can project. So when I noticed the half
day-old lamb lying on its side and straining in obvious discomfort, and
an inspection quickly revealed not even a trace of a rectal aperture, I
called my vet to seek counsel.
His outlook was gloomy. If the defect was severe enough, it seemed the
lamb might not even have a properly developed intestine. If so, it would
be dead by morning. If it were still alive, he could look at it then,
assuring me that it would be uncomfortable but not in a great deal of
pain.
At least the delay until morning would take part of the decision out of
my hands. If the lamb died, such was life. If it lived, I still had to
justify to myself the cost of the procedure, which I was pretty sure
would at least equal the value of the lamb full grown at market time.
As the lamb's luck would have it, she made it easily through the night.
I justified the decision to make the 40 kilometer trip to the vet by
hoping fervently that a small and simple, hence inexpensive incision
would right the matter.
Well, not quite. It turned out there was a quarter inch of tissue
between the lamb's smooth backside and his anal muscle. An incision
would simply grow shut. My vet's solution was to pull the anal tissue
forward and suture it to the outside. It was some pretty delicate and
nifty work. But it wasn't simple. A couple x-rays, some medication, it
all came to a bill for $140. Not much chance of making money on that
lamb. For the lamb, at least, it was a happy ending. She never looked
back and four weeks later I can't pick her out of the crowd.
It probably wasn't a real smart decision, and I likely wouldn't do it
again, despite my relatively soft heart. A livestock farmer can't afford
too many kind gestures these days if they cost money. The sad fact is
that today's livestock prices, and those of the last few years, mean
most farmers visit the vet only in extreme circumstances. The results
are sometimes not what farmers who generally love their animals would
really like.
Sheep may be an extreme example of this. There is almost nothing you can
take a single animal to the vet for that won't result in a bill greater
than the animal's value. Prolapsed uterus? We replace it ourselves, and
if we can't make it stay, we put the animal down. Impossibly large lamb
or a cervix that won't dilate? A caesarean is far too costly. Better, as
one vet advised me, to shoot the ewe and attempt to extract the lamb
alive afterwards. (It worked.)
The same applies to cattle, though there is of course more room to spend
money and still come out okay. Or, at least there was prior to the
collapse of the calf market last fall. More and more, farmers are
treating ailments that they would formerly have taken to a vet. If their
treatments fail, the cheapest alternative may be to put the animal down.
The problem is not with the rates rural veterinarians charge. They work
long hard hours and few make their fortune and retire early. The problem
is that the value of livestock has failed drastically to keep up with
the cost of living, or any other cost.
As I said earlier, no farmer wants to work outside his comfort zone with
animals. Nor does he want to put down an animal because routine
procedures are too costly to contemplate. Yet, there is no readily
discernible solution to this dilemma. Livestock prices will never move
in lock step with the cost of human labour or other inputs. The history
of modern agriculture is that prices for farm commodities have steadily
declined, relative to all other costs. Present government policies and
market trends don't appear likely to change that.
A partial solution to this sorry situation would be for governments to
financially assist rural vet clinics. If they could afford to lower
rates, farmers could afford to use them more. This would likely yield
greater returns to farmers and their communities than many of the
"value-added" schemes that garner government support. It should also
make the animal welfare folks happy. And it would keep life for lambs
like mine from being a real bummer.
Honorary Life Membership
Well, bragging is always a bit pathetic, especially for a guy who's
passed the half-century mark, but I am going to run the risk that you my
readers will heap silent scorn on me for indulging myself. (Remember, I
said silent.)
Here goes.
At the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists last
week I was awarded an honorary life membership. The Institute usually
awards a couple of these per year. This year, I was the only one. I am
pretty flattered by this, despite the fact that I think there was a
collosal mistake and there must be some other Paul Beingessner around
who deserved the honor. (Actually, there is another Paul Beingessner,
but he lives in Ontario so I suspect he is not the intended one.)
I know little about the SIA, except that a lot of the folks I know who
work in the agriculture field are agrologists, as they have to be by the
law that set up the SIA, but a lot of the folks on the list of honorary
life members are folks I know, or knew, and have a lot of respect for.
Anyway, if you want to see the list, google the SIA. It's a simple
website.
Thanks to Richard Marleau, who I met for the first time at the banquet,
but who is on my email list. for putting my name forward. Richard seems
like a very nice man, but apparently he is living proof of P T Barnum's
dictum that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Regards
Paul Beingessner
passed the half-century mark, but I am going to run the risk that you my
readers will heap silent scorn on me for indulging myself. (Remember, I
said silent.)
Here goes.
At the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists last
week I was awarded an honorary life membership. The Institute usually
awards a couple of these per year. This year, I was the only one. I am
pretty flattered by this, despite the fact that I think there was a
collosal mistake and there must be some other Paul Beingessner around
who deserved the honor. (Actually, there is another Paul Beingessner,
but he lives in Ontario so I suspect he is not the intended one.)
I know little about the SIA, except that a lot of the folks I know who
work in the agriculture field are agrologists, as they have to be by the
law that set up the SIA, but a lot of the folks on the list of honorary
life members are folks I know, or knew, and have a lot of respect for.
Anyway, if you want to see the list, google the SIA. It's a simple
website.
Thanks to Richard Marleau, who I met for the first time at the banquet,
but who is on my email list. for putting my name forward. Richard seems
like a very nice man, but apparently he is living proof of P T Barnum's
dictum that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Regards
Paul Beingessner
Farmers Pay Hefty Price for Guessing Wrong 31/03/08
Column # 664 Farmers Pay Hefty Price for Guessing Wrong 31/03/08
The end-of-March Pool Return Outlook from the CWB for wheat, durum and
barley is largely unchanged from the PRO in February. This means the CWB
has increasing confidence in these numbers and they are unlikely to
change substantially this crop year. In fact, the CWB has asked the
federal government to allow an increase to initial payments of some $50
per tonne for spring wheat and $80 for durum.
This will make 1 CWRS with 13.5 per cent protein, loaded in a producer
car in my home town of Truax, worth $7.56 net per bushel initially with
potential for that to rise to $9.27 a bushel if the PRO is realized. The
value of durum wheat is even more substantial. Number 1 CWAD 14.5 will
bring $12.09 a bushel initially, with potential for $13.36 by the time
the pool is finished.
However, not all western Canadian farmers shipping these grains will
realize these high values. Some who chose to sign up with the CWB's
Fixed Price Contracts (FPC) will pay a hefty price for trying to
outguess the market for red spring wheat.
In response to farmer pressure to be able to lock in prices early in the
crop year, and because of legislative change in 1998, the CWB began to
offer a variety of contracting options to farmers. One of these is the
Fixed Price Contract (FPC). Under this, farmers are able to lock in a
price prior to, and early in the crop year. Before this crop year
began, the FPC looked better than the PRO that was predicted for the
upcoming year. For example, the PRO on July 13, 2007 for 1 CWRS 13.5 was
at $228, while the FPC was at $245.46. Farmers who locked in that day
would be expecting a substantial return over the price obtained by
farmers who stayed in the pool.
Of course, what followed was a steady and remarkable upturn in grain
prices. The average FPC for the crop year was taken at $244.83 per tonne
for 1 CWRS 13.5. The current PRO is $388 per tonne, meaning the average
producer who signed a FPC has left $143 a tonne on the table. Since 3.5
million tonnes were signed up under the FPC, farmers have left an
astonishing $501 million on the table, compared to what they would have
received if they stayed in the pool.
Nor is this phenomenon unique to CWB grains. A farmer here recently
complained to me that by pricing his lentils early in the crop year, he
had foregone some $50,000 compared to today's prices.
Farmers in this position in Canada have much company in the U.S. The
average elevator bid in North Dakota for wheat equivalent to 1 CWRS 13.5
been $9.69 a bushel, but the average price actually received by farmers
in North Dakota to date has been $6.50 a bushel. Obviously, farmers
there also jumped into the market early when prices looked good compared
to last year's.
There are two points of interest here. Since the CWB developed this
option, farmers have sometimes done better with FPCs than those who
stayed in the pool. However, there is no doubt they guessed badly this
year. American farmers were no more astute. The other point is that
farmers who are now screaming about the current CWB prices for wheat and
durum, compared with U.S. elevator prices, are being particularly
cynical. Recently, a handful of anti-CWB farmers are arguing that the
CWB has failed farmers since the PRO is not equal to American spot
prices for today. Unless they are especially naïve, these farmers have
to know that such prices are offered only because there is virtually no
grain left on American farms. As I said earlier, the average North
Dakota farmer got $6.50 a bushel for his red wheat, not $20. He can only
wish he was in the enviable position of farmers in the CWB pool right
now.
Farmers with FPCs need to understand that, just as in the open market,
they must deliver their entire contracts to the CWB. They cannot be
short on tonnage or they will have to buy out their contracts. Since the
CWB sells futures contracts to hedge the FPCs, it must purchase them
back if farmers default on delivery to the contract. Farmers will be
billed for that buyout, which is based on the difference between futures
prices at the time of sign-up compared to futures prices on the day of
the buyout. The CWB has no choice but to hold farmers to these
contracts. As is the case for open market grains, farmers are obliged to
fill their contracts, and the mechanism the CWB uses to deal with
default is essentially the same as grain companies use with open market
contracts.
Buyouts can be extremely expensive. Currently they are running as high
as $200 per tonne, so if a farmer has signed up 100 tonnes but delivers
95, he could be on the hook for $1,000.
Another issue facing some farmers is that when they deliver to an
elevator they will receive the initial CWB price. The elevator does not
know the value of the farmer's FPC. If the initial is higher than the
FPC, like it is now, the farmer will then receive a bill from the CWB
for the difference. Currently, there are hundreds of thousands of tonnes
of grain in this position. Farmers should understand why this is
happening.
Lastly, price pooling has been getting a bad rap in some quarters. There
is no doubt that in a falling market, it can be profitable to take a
FPC. In a rising market, it is not such a good idea. How good are you at
guessing which type of year it will be? This year, farmers in the U.S.
and Canada have guessed wrong and the consequences are huge. Price
pooling looks like a pretty good deal after all.
The end-of-March Pool Return Outlook from the CWB for wheat, durum and
barley is largely unchanged from the PRO in February. This means the CWB
has increasing confidence in these numbers and they are unlikely to
change substantially this crop year. In fact, the CWB has asked the
federal government to allow an increase to initial payments of some $50
per tonne for spring wheat and $80 for durum.
This will make 1 CWRS with 13.5 per cent protein, loaded in a producer
car in my home town of Truax, worth $7.56 net per bushel initially with
potential for that to rise to $9.27 a bushel if the PRO is realized. The
value of durum wheat is even more substantial. Number 1 CWAD 14.5 will
bring $12.09 a bushel initially, with potential for $13.36 by the time
the pool is finished.
However, not all western Canadian farmers shipping these grains will
realize these high values. Some who chose to sign up with the CWB's
Fixed Price Contracts (FPC) will pay a hefty price for trying to
outguess the market for red spring wheat.
In response to farmer pressure to be able to lock in prices early in the
crop year, and because of legislative change in 1998, the CWB began to
offer a variety of contracting options to farmers. One of these is the
Fixed Price Contract (FPC). Under this, farmers are able to lock in a
price prior to, and early in the crop year. Before this crop year
began, the FPC looked better than the PRO that was predicted for the
upcoming year. For example, the PRO on July 13, 2007 for 1 CWRS 13.5 was
at $228, while the FPC was at $245.46. Farmers who locked in that day
would be expecting a substantial return over the price obtained by
farmers who stayed in the pool.
Of course, what followed was a steady and remarkable upturn in grain
prices. The average FPC for the crop year was taken at $244.83 per tonne
for 1 CWRS 13.5. The current PRO is $388 per tonne, meaning the average
producer who signed a FPC has left $143 a tonne on the table. Since 3.5
million tonnes were signed up under the FPC, farmers have left an
astonishing $501 million on the table, compared to what they would have
received if they stayed in the pool.
Nor is this phenomenon unique to CWB grains. A farmer here recently
complained to me that by pricing his lentils early in the crop year, he
had foregone some $50,000 compared to today's prices.
Farmers in this position in Canada have much company in the U.S. The
average elevator bid in North Dakota for wheat equivalent to 1 CWRS 13.5
been $9.69 a bushel, but the average price actually received by farmers
in North Dakota to date has been $6.50 a bushel. Obviously, farmers
there also jumped into the market early when prices looked good compared
to last year's.
There are two points of interest here. Since the CWB developed this
option, farmers have sometimes done better with FPCs than those who
stayed in the pool. However, there is no doubt they guessed badly this
year. American farmers were no more astute. The other point is that
farmers who are now screaming about the current CWB prices for wheat and
durum, compared with U.S. elevator prices, are being particularly
cynical. Recently, a handful of anti-CWB farmers are arguing that the
CWB has failed farmers since the PRO is not equal to American spot
prices for today. Unless they are especially naïve, these farmers have
to know that such prices are offered only because there is virtually no
grain left on American farms. As I said earlier, the average North
Dakota farmer got $6.50 a bushel for his red wheat, not $20. He can only
wish he was in the enviable position of farmers in the CWB pool right
now.
Farmers with FPCs need to understand that, just as in the open market,
they must deliver their entire contracts to the CWB. They cannot be
short on tonnage or they will have to buy out their contracts. Since the
CWB sells futures contracts to hedge the FPCs, it must purchase them
back if farmers default on delivery to the contract. Farmers will be
billed for that buyout, which is based on the difference between futures
prices at the time of sign-up compared to futures prices on the day of
the buyout. The CWB has no choice but to hold farmers to these
contracts. As is the case for open market grains, farmers are obliged to
fill their contracts, and the mechanism the CWB uses to deal with
default is essentially the same as grain companies use with open market
contracts.
Buyouts can be extremely expensive. Currently they are running as high
as $200 per tonne, so if a farmer has signed up 100 tonnes but delivers
95, he could be on the hook for $1,000.
Another issue facing some farmers is that when they deliver to an
elevator they will receive the initial CWB price. The elevator does not
know the value of the farmer's FPC. If the initial is higher than the
FPC, like it is now, the farmer will then receive a bill from the CWB
for the difference. Currently, there are hundreds of thousands of tonnes
of grain in this position. Farmers should understand why this is
happening.
Lastly, price pooling has been getting a bad rap in some quarters. There
is no doubt that in a falling market, it can be profitable to take a
FPC. In a rising market, it is not such a good idea. How good are you at
guessing which type of year it will be? This year, farmers in the U.S.
and Canada have guessed wrong and the consequences are huge. Price
pooling looks like a pretty good deal after all.
Government Scolding Not Too Effective
Column # 663 Government Scolding Not Too Effective 24/03/08
Farmers are generally pretty happy about the price of grain these days.
The exception would be livestock farmers who are acutely aware at the
moment that one person's meat is another's poison. Whatever their mental
state, farmers are universally concerned that the price boom for grains
will largely be snatched away by input suppliers. Even the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture seems mildly concerned.
Members of that committee gave a browbeating to some input manufacturers
a couple weeks back, which is usually about how far such things are
taken by the House. Politicians seem to think a good scolding will do
the trick of getting these folks to act reasonably. Fertilizer suppliers
around here must have thick skins, because it hasn't worked on them so
far.
If the government really wanted to improve things for farmers, there is
lots it could do, and a few things it should think hard about not doing.
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz's obsession with getting rid of Kernal
Visual Distinguisability (KVD) is one of the latter. I would agree that
KVD should be eventually eliminated. It does indeed have some impact on
the ability to improve wheat varieties. The grain industry collectively
was on target to do this before Ritz cracked open Pandora's box by
announcing it would be gone by the start of the new crop year.
Even Ritz's advisors at Agriculture Canada were against the hasty
agenda, telling the Minister that the industry is not ready for this and
it might affect our ability to convince our customers they are receiving
their customary quality. One rumor I've heard is that grain companies
have been mumbling about raising their elevation fees by $4 a tonne to
manage the risk that will come with the end of KVD. I will admit that
single-mindedness can sometimes be a virtue. In the case of the
Agriculture Minister, it looks more like stubborn foolishness.
Nor will ending KVD bring immediate rewards. It takes years to bring new
varieties to market, and a firm date of 2010, as the industry was
proposing, would have allowed two things to happen. It would have given
plant breeders the go-ahead signal to move these varieties and research
forward, and it would have given the industry a deadline to meet to deal
with the effects of the move. In this case, the Minister should have
taken his own mantra to heart - "Lead, follow or get out of the way" -
and gotten out of the way. If farmers face financial repercussions
because of this move, years before they see any benefits, they'll know
whom to thank.
In the realm of doing something that would truly benefit farmers, the
government should consider taking some firm action on the transportation
issue. Grain shippers have been especially concerned with the railways'
performance. For example, on average for 2007, the railways provided
only 52 per cent of the rail cars ordered by the CWB when required,
compared to 83 per cent in 1999. That is a 31-per-cent service decline
over the last eight years.
The government stated its intention to conduct a review of rail service
when Bill C8 passed the House. Since this has happened, we can only wait
for the Minister of Transport to give us details on the review. Farm
groups are pressing for the government to also conduct a full costing
review for the grain industry. The last review was in 1992, and farmers
are now paying excessively for service that is mediocre at best. When
the Western Grain Transportation Act was passed, a contribution to fixed
costs equal to 20 percent of variable costs was deemed a suitable return
to the railways. Estimates show that this number has ballooned to over
50 percent.
A re-costing could save farmers many millions of dollars while
reflecting the real costs to the railways along with an adequate
contribution to fixed costs. The government could take this step, and
give the railways a scolding as well. That would satisfy political egos
while actually accomplishing something concrete. It would be a nice
change.
Farmers are generally pretty happy about the price of grain these days.
The exception would be livestock farmers who are acutely aware at the
moment that one person's meat is another's poison. Whatever their mental
state, farmers are universally concerned that the price boom for grains
will largely be snatched away by input suppliers. Even the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture seems mildly concerned.
Members of that committee gave a browbeating to some input manufacturers
a couple weeks back, which is usually about how far such things are
taken by the House. Politicians seem to think a good scolding will do
the trick of getting these folks to act reasonably. Fertilizer suppliers
around here must have thick skins, because it hasn't worked on them so
far.
If the government really wanted to improve things for farmers, there is
lots it could do, and a few things it should think hard about not doing.
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz's obsession with getting rid of Kernal
Visual Distinguisability (KVD) is one of the latter. I would agree that
KVD should be eventually eliminated. It does indeed have some impact on
the ability to improve wheat varieties. The grain industry collectively
was on target to do this before Ritz cracked open Pandora's box by
announcing it would be gone by the start of the new crop year.
Even Ritz's advisors at Agriculture Canada were against the hasty
agenda, telling the Minister that the industry is not ready for this and
it might affect our ability to convince our customers they are receiving
their customary quality. One rumor I've heard is that grain companies
have been mumbling about raising their elevation fees by $4 a tonne to
manage the risk that will come with the end of KVD. I will admit that
single-mindedness can sometimes be a virtue. In the case of the
Agriculture Minister, it looks more like stubborn foolishness.
Nor will ending KVD bring immediate rewards. It takes years to bring new
varieties to market, and a firm date of 2010, as the industry was
proposing, would have allowed two things to happen. It would have given
plant breeders the go-ahead signal to move these varieties and research
forward, and it would have given the industry a deadline to meet to deal
with the effects of the move. In this case, the Minister should have
taken his own mantra to heart - "Lead, follow or get out of the way" -
and gotten out of the way. If farmers face financial repercussions
because of this move, years before they see any benefits, they'll know
whom to thank.
In the realm of doing something that would truly benefit farmers, the
government should consider taking some firm action on the transportation
issue. Grain shippers have been especially concerned with the railways'
performance. For example, on average for 2007, the railways provided
only 52 per cent of the rail cars ordered by the CWB when required,
compared to 83 per cent in 1999. That is a 31-per-cent service decline
over the last eight years.
The government stated its intention to conduct a review of rail service
when Bill C8 passed the House. Since this has happened, we can only wait
for the Minister of Transport to give us details on the review. Farm
groups are pressing for the government to also conduct a full costing
review for the grain industry. The last review was in 1992, and farmers
are now paying excessively for service that is mediocre at best. When
the Western Grain Transportation Act was passed, a contribution to fixed
costs equal to 20 percent of variable costs was deemed a suitable return
to the railways. Estimates show that this number has ballooned to over
50 percent.
A re-costing could save farmers many millions of dollars while
reflecting the real costs to the railways along with an adequate
contribution to fixed costs. The government could take this step, and
give the railways a scolding as well. That would satisfy political egos
while actually accomplishing something concrete. It would be a nice
change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
