麻豆视频

In reading a recent article on growing concerns from some quarters over the quality of Canadian export wheat, I must say the old adage about being careful about what you wish for came to mind.

The Western Producer story quoted Erwan Boubet, chief executive officer of Geneva, Switzerland-based grain company IFACO.

鈥淚t is the first time in our history that our clients are asking us to look for other origins in replacement of Canada,鈥� he said in the article.

鈥淲hen you have been the main Canadian wheat sellers in West Africa for 30 years, it hurts when your clients say 鈥極K, don鈥檛 bother me anymore with your crappy wheat. Sign me something else.鈥� 鈥�

Weather issues were cited as one reason for inconsistencies in quality, but as a sideline observer of agriculture for decades now, I dismiss that contention since weather extremes are hardly a new issue facing the industry. Heavy rains, late springs, drought, and early fall frosts have impacted quality in the past, but the system seemed capable of dealing with the issues before it became a buyer concern.

Rail logistics took part of the blame too.

The huge crop of 2013 posed an issue in terms of getting the crop off farm and into export position, but one might have thought with huge stores of common quality grain, the ability to ensure consistent ship loads would have been made simpler based on being able to access more grain in less spots on the Prairies.

So what is a more likely the culprit here?

Maybe the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association actually have exactly what they wanted, although a reality where the lone sales edge Canada has consistently had disappearing wouldn鈥檛 seem something they would have fought hard to achieve.

But the WCWGA lobby might have to look themselves in the mirror to find one of those behind the current concerns.

Those against single desk selling, the WCWGA lead along them, may be reluctant to admit the old Canadian Wheat Board did a better job of sourcing grain, and creating consistent loads for exports, but that is appearing the case.

It is hard to argue that a single entity, with control of export sales, has more control of the system that do a fractured system of multiple company sourcing product.

Grain companies also have profit for shareholders as a core goal, and while you might think that means farmers will see profits too, that is not the case. Big companies work on volumes and margins and gross tonnages alongside farmer needs. The two sides are not always going to be achieved in the same way, and company shareholder needs will always trump anyone else.

Then there is the general philosophical tilt of our federal government. It鈥檚 rather clear they would be fine with a no rules at all agricultural sector, leaving big business free to generate profits in any way they can, and in this case the term big business does not mean land rich farmers.

While not yet abandoning their entire role in the sector the feds have changed the grain commission structure, and one has to wonder if those changes may not be another part of the puzzle in terms of customer dissatisfaction with recent wheat purchases.

Canada has long managed to hold wheat market share based on this country鈥檚 ability to consistently grow and deliver a high grade product. Without that ability we become just another producer of so-so quality wheat, with the millstone of a high cost production and delivery system, trying to find sales. If recent changes are indeed the issue in quality control, the future, as much as it is one many prodders lobbied for, will not be a good one for wheat growers here.

Calvin Daniels is Assistant Editor with Yorkton This Week.