If anyone knows how to keep financial and other documents in order, it’s Lacey Frizzell. Her consulting business helps farmers and businesses organize their financial information, then set up systems to keep it organized.

“Farmers are unique,” says Frizzell. “There’s a lot of information being thrown at us from a variety of sources, which makes it very hard to keep organized.”

WHY IT MATTERS: Tax season isn’t that far away. A good record keeping system can ease farmer headaches.

Don’t file it unless you really need to keep it, she advised.

Will anyone on your farm management team look at it again? Is it relevant for legal or financial reasons? “What is the purpose?” Frizzell asked.

Usually, the purpose is the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

Generally, the CRA requires businesses to keep records on hand for six years. That is, six years after the end of the last tax year they relate to. If your farm’s year-end is Dec. 31, as of January 2026, you should be storing records from as far back as your 2019 fiscal year. If your farm’s year-end is Oct. 31, by January 2026 you should still have records around from your 2018-19 fiscal year.

This covers most expenses and income, but paperwork related to capital purchases should be kept even longer. Keep receipts for anything that would be relevant if you sold or wound down your farm. This includes any land or equipment showing the book value (i.e., initial purchase price). Selling buildings, quota or any equipment you’ve been depreciating has tax consequences — and the CRA might ask for original purchase documents.

The bottom line: you don’t need to keep everything, but check with your accountant if you’re not sure.

Paper or pixels?

Once you’ve decided to keep that receipt, you have to decide if you’ll file it as paper or as a digital record. Both have downsides. If you choose a paper system, you’ll be printing out email attachments and bank transfer notifications. If you choose digital, you’ll be scanning many paper receipts.

Frizzell loves technology, but she uses a paper-based system. “I still recommend that people print everything because paper is still seemingly king,” she said.

First, she says, technology is never 100 per cent reliable. Hard drives fail. USB sticks get lost. Cloud services have storage limits and generally there is an annual fee associated with the service.

Your technology can also become obsolete. If you’re storing receipts through an online bookkeeping program, what if the software company goes out of business? If you change bookkeeping programs, will you still be able to view scanned invoices from past years? Will the records always be readily available and easy to locate?

“I would love to be more enthusiastic about digital record-keeping,” says Frizzell. “I’m just finding that there’s no live technology that you own as an individual, without paying a subscription.”

A third potential problem is the safety of your digital information. “Is your information being shared on someone else’s platform? I caution people on what information they want to share.” In a worst-case scenario, a hacker may have access to all your digital information.

If you do keep your records online, Frizzell recommends working with your local technology guru to set up appropriate firewalls and anti-virus programs.

Rules are for everyone

No matter where your records are stored, a good bookkeeping system has a set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) followed by everyone on the farm.

For example, make sure you know where originals are. “Ultimately there should be one central location where records are held,” Frizzell said. “Especially for audit purposes and recall.”

Some bookkeeping programs allow more than one person to upload scanned receipts and invoices straight into the software. This is convenient for employees picking up parts or materials; they can scan and upload their receipts before they come home from town. But where will you have them store the original paper copies?

With more than one person inputting information, bookkeeping can become messy. If one person uploads receipts from the local “Co-op” and another adds invoices from the “Coop,” your books could show two separate input providers. It’s important to set up standard procedures or make sure the bookkeeper has an eye on things.

It’s also important to have a backup plan for your bookkeeper. If something happens to them, can someone else access your financial records?

Your farm, your plan

The best system is the one that works for your farm and is kept up to date.

Accountants aren’t usually looking at your record-keeping (depending on the type of financial statements you need) but at your bookkeeping. Unless your financial records will be professionally audited, you’re keeping records to serve requests from the CRA and your own managerial needs.

Since nobody but your farm team needs to see a lot of the information, you have an opportunity to develop an system perfect for you.

Decide who needs access to the books and the bank accounts. This will be unique to every farm. Some farms have just one manager; some have several. Sometimes limiting access to accounts can safeguard your finances.

Some staff might need access to your filing system, maybe to check receipts or invoices. But, Frizzell says, “Not all employees need access to everything.” Some bookkeeping programs use password protection to restrict access to some information while still allowing staff to access specific files.

On some farms, several members of the management team might want to access the bookkeeping system. As a farm manager herself, Frizzell says, “I would strongly urge to see paper copies of invoices.”

Frizzell files her paper copies by date and by enterprise (for her, that means separating the cattle bills from the cropping bills). She also keeps separate files for invoices and receipts that they access more frequently.

Large farms might have a chief financial officer. Even small farms though typically have just one person in charge of financial record-keeping. Sometimes, a second person might be actually paying the bills. Frizzell prefers a “check and balance system.”

This could mean one person writes the cheques and a second person reviews them, or it could mean requiring two signatures on each cheque.

As online bill payment becomes more common, Frizzell recommends using an online cash management service that allows you to set up a two-person system for these payments. For example, one person can prepare e-transfers, a second person must approve them. (If you’re looking into this, search for “two to sign” accounts, or “dual sign” accounts.)

Check and balance systems protect farms against the rare, unhappy situation where one partner so desperately needs cash that they resort to “borrowing” from the farm. These systems can also help reduce simple errors. Who hasn’t typed 47 when they meant 74? “A lot of things are human driven, and as humans, we do make errors,” says Frizzell.

Keep it current

Your system is only useful if it’s up to date. For large farms, this could mean inputting information daily. Smaller farms might opt for monthly. If regular bookkeeping sessions are not for you, your system may need a simplifying redesign, or maybe it’s time to hire a bookkeeper.

There are cost savings and benefits to good records.

Accountants typically charge by the hour. They will need less time to calculate taxes if your financial records are well-maintained and reasonably error-free. The horrors of a CRA audit also increase exponentially if your records are hard to find or not available.

Frizzell has found some farmers reluctant to pay for bookkeeping when they know they could do it themselves. But bookkeepers can also take on tasks like developing environmental farm plans, or making sure vegetable production is up to Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) standards.

If you want to learn to do your own bookkeeping (or train someone new) could you pay your current bookkeeper to train you? There are also courses available.

“Some of it is pretty simple,” Frizzell says, “but then there’s things that you need to figure out like what capital cost allowance depreciation class does the gravity wagon go in or that new tractor.”

The post Winter downtime: Get your farm records together appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Under the agreement announced this week, the two companies plan to work together to develop new insurance products for the agricultural market.

While Canadian farmers have access to government-run, subsidized crop insurance programs, as well as some private sector insurance options, farmers in some parts of the world don’t have this luxury.

“There are different maturity levels of crop insurance in each country,” said Ron Osborne, Farmers Edge’s chief strategy officer.

One reason ag insurance markets are thin in some countries is the lack of data. Historic crop yield data is important, but other data sets also play a part.

In Canada, for example, “we’ve got rich data sets on soils, and soils maps,” said Osborne. “We’ve got a fairly dense network of weather stations.”

Working with PartnerRe, FarmersEdge plans to export its data expertise around the world, “bringing risk management in a way that they’ve never been able to have before.”

This will include places where there was so little data available, Osborne said, that companies “didn’t feel comfortable writing a policy.”

One large-scale farm in Brazil, he said, had not been able to insure its production. “We deployed our system and they were almost immediately able to get insurance.”

Here in Canada, Farmers Edge plans to use its extensive data platform to develop new products to help farmers work with insurance companies faster. “Imagine you had a hail event and you got paid the next day,” Osborne said.

The first step FarmersEdge hopes to take is to enhance data transfer capabilities between farmers and existing insurers. “What we’re working on is trying to make it easier for the farmers to do business.”

Farmers Edge has ambitious future plans in the North American market. “Step no. 2,” Osborne said, “is providing new types of coverage.”

Farmers Edge has grown from two Manitoba agronomists doing precision data work in 2005 to a company with 450 employees operating in five countries around the world.

In Western Canada, Farmers Edge offers precision farming solutions including variable-rate technology and satellite imagery.

PartnerRe, meanwhile, provides reinsurance to insurance companies in 150 countries, including specialty weather and credit protection services. The Bermuda-based company is publicly traded and has been in business since 1993.

— Leeann Minogue is the editor of Grainews at Griffin, Sask. Follow her at @GrainMuse on Twitter.

The post Farmers Edge to use data to edge into insurance sector appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

To be sure, several smaller companies remain in the game — but with marriages now consummated for Dow Chemical and DuPont, and for Syngenta and ChemChina, Bayer’s pending takeover of Monsanto and, now, BASF getting set to buy Bayer Crop Science assets, Canada may soon see only four big players in pesticide and seeds.

BASF’s Canadian business director, Ron Kehler, spoke to Canadian farm media Tuesday about that company’s deal to buy seed and herbicide businesses from Bayer.

Asked about competition in the seed and chemical sectors, Kehler said the increased costs of stricter environmental regulations, trait development and finding new modes of action are raising the bar as to who can be a significant player.

“The price to play, or to be in this business, continues to go up,” he said.

For 5.9 billion euros (C$8.7 billion), BASF will get Bayer’s traits and breeding for soybeans, cotton and canola, and, significantly, its Liberty (glufosinate ammonium) herbicide business and LibertyLink and InVigor traits.

The deal also gives BASF Bayer’s seed processing facility in Lethbridge, chemical formulation and distribution facilities in Regina and a seed breeding centre in Saskatoon.

Along with those existing products, BASF has purchased Bayer’s research and development pipeline — including, Kehler said, “more than 250 patent families.”

With this purchase, 1,800 Bayer employees from commercial R+D, breeding and production — of whom 300 are within scope in Canada — will transfer to BASF.

Bayer is divesting these assets in the context of its acquisition of Monsanto.

Kehler described Bayer’s development of LiberyLink technology as “an amazing business story,” currently growing by about 14 per cent per year.

BASF’s purchase of Bayer’s LibertyLink canola, soybean and cotton portolio, he said, will be “highly complementary” to BASF’s existing product portfolio. Many of the large agricultural chemical companies are also now in the seed business.

New to the seed business, BASF plans to use the newly-acquired LibertyLink varieties to “deliver more tools to support growers,” Kehler said.

Having a wider range of products to offer will give BASF staff more opportunities to connect with customers over the course of the crop year, and “partner with farmers in new ways.”

Although the purchase of Liberty, a Group 10 herbicide, will also be a valuable asset for BASF, “we want to offer new solutions for herbicide-resistant management by using glufosinate ammonium as an attractive mixing partner,” Kehler said.

Rotating chemical groups and using tank mixes as part of an integrated weed management program can help to slow the development of herbicide resistance in weeds.

BASF will also continue to build on the seed trait development it’s done in the past.

“We’re now able to fund more work in traits and continue to do the work that we’re doing on herbicide development, which is an area of key important to our research,” Kehler said.

Until the deal closes, Kehler said it will be “business as usual” for farmers dealing with BASF or Bayer.

The sale is conditional on Bayer closing its deal to buy Monsanto, which the German company has said it hopes to do early next year.

— Leeann Minogue is editor of Grainews at Griffin, Sask. Includes files from Maggie Van Camp of Country Guide at Blackstock, Ont.

The post BASF’s new Canadian stake to include three plants, 300 staff appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

While “there were probably some wheat acres already harvested,” according to Dan Packer, BASF’s cereals crop manager, this agreement will provide an additional pre-harvest option for farmers who still have wheat, barley or durum out in the field.

Heat LQ has been specifically listed on 2017-18 producer declaration cards as a product that can’t be applied for pre-harvest use on wheat, durum, barley and flax.

Grain buyers are aware of the new MRLs, said Wade Sobkowich, executive director of the Western Grain Elevator Association. “Grain companies will be disregarding that portion of the declaration.”

Each of the elevators “is taking a different approach,” Packer said. Some grain companies will send out new declaration forms; others will handle the issue verbally.

With no MRLs set for flax or mustard, however, Heat LQ should not be used on those crops this harvest season.

Codex standards are food standards used by the World Trade Organization as basic trading guidelines. MRLs establish a safe maximum level of residue from a particular product.

Having no established MRL doesn’t necessarily mean the product is unsafe. However, without an agreed-upon maximum limit, an importer may reject shipments containing any residual traces of the product.

Cereals Canada welcomed the change for Heat LQ. “This will now allow Canadian (cereals) farmers to have access to this technology,” president Cam Dahl told the Manitoba Co-operator in an email.

Other products still on the WGEA’s prohibited list include chlormequat on wheat or any other cereal; quinclorac on canola; metconazole on canola; fluoxastrobin on soybeans; and benzovindiflupyr on soybeans.

Heat LQ, a Group 14 saflufenacil herbicide, “has both contact and systemic properties,” Packer said. This gives it the ability to move through plants and dry down broadleaf weeds. It can also be used as a pre-seed, pre-emergent and chemfallow herbicide.

Packer said it’s very effective on hard-to-control weeds such as volunteer Roundup Ready canola, wild buckwheat and redroot pigweed. He recommended tank mixing Heat LQ with glyphosate for complete control.

Heat LQ should be used with high water volume — a minimum of 10 gallons per acre — and applied at the standard label rate of 40 acres per case.

Heat LQ is also recommended for use in canola, chickpeas, dry common beans, field peas, red lentils, soybeans and sunflowers.

— Leeann Minogue is the editor of Grainews at Griffin, Sask. Includes files from Allan Dawson of the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post Heat LQ cleared for pre-harvest use in wheat, barley appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan last Monday wrapped up its latest round of spring district meetings, at all six of which APAS general manager Duane Haave presented on the budget’s impact on farmers.

While the province characterized its budget as a bid to raise consumption taxes and cut back its reliance on dwindling oil and potash revenues, “there seems to be a desire among some people to pit urban against rural,” said Haave.

However, he said, in this budget, farmers are definitely sharing the pain.

APAS has estimated changes to provincial sales tax and the removal of farm fuel exemptions will cost Saskatchewan farms about $74 million annually, and $28.8 million of that increase will come from the government’s move to charge PST — which itself was raised to six per cent — on insurance premiums.

Farmers can often pay relatively more insurance than business owners in other industries, Haave said, noting insurance premiums for crops, livestock, hail protection, buildings, vehicles and other machinery, and income stabilization.

APAS has previously said a farm paying $100,000 in premiums alone isn’t out of the ordinary.

The province has also already estimated that ending farmers’ fuel tax exemption for bulk purchases of gasoline, and cutting farmers’ exemption for bulk diesel — both effective April 1 — will generate $40.2 million in extra fuel tax revenue.

APAS members, during their meetings, also discussed the budget’s planned elimination of the Saskatchewan Pastures Program, plus the province’s plan to sell its fleet of grain hopper cars.

APAS directors are consulting with affected members about those changes.

Other agricultural issues APAS members discussed at district meetings include Saskatchewan’s trespassing laws, changes to drainage legislation, the Canadian Grain Commission surplus and the federal government’s consultations on changes to cash purchase deferrals.

Each of the six APAS meetings closed with a presentation on climate change, including information about carbon emissions from crop and livestock production, Canada’s carbon reduction commitments and how much a carbon tax might cost farmers

Members are adamant that before a carbon tax is imposed, government must recognize the carbon sequestration that has come from changing farm management practices. “The taxes and recognition have to be together,” said APAS president Todd Lewis.

APAS directors plan to develop a carbon policy proposal at an upcoming “Carbon Policy Summit” on July 13-14 in Saskatoon.

— Leeann Minogue is editor of Grainews at Griffin, Sask. Follow her at @grainmuse on Twitter.

The post Saskatchewan budget seen as costly touch for farms appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Anyone working in agriculture today has 24/7 access to online information about crop disease and pests, but there is no substitute for seeing these problems in real life. Getting up close so you can see all sides of a plant or bug, or even smelling a “new” weed can really help agronomists out in the field.

Researchers from Saskatchewan Agriculture and the University of Saskatchewan brought actual weeds and pests out to the School site. This opportunity for a good look is especially helpful when a weed or pest is extending its area — if you get a preview of a weed on the move, you’ll recognize it when it settles into fields in your area.

• GALLERY: See more photos from the Crop Diagnostic School at Grainews.ca

It’s useful to see weeds in pots and bugs in jars, but where the Crop Diagnostic School really excels is with its field plots. Saskatchewan Agriculture organizers begin to plan for the event months before it takes place. They lay out, seed, and treat crop plots to display actual problems that farmers will face during the growing season. Some problems they demonstrated this year were lentils seeded without inoculant, soybeans suffering from accidental herbicide drift and canola plants sprayed at the wrong time. Some of these “problem” plots were clearly labeled so participants could learn from them. Others were intentionally left unlabeled, and agronomists were challenged to use their own skills to diagnose the underlying issues.

Cory Jacobs, Saskatchewan Agriculture regional crops specialist likes this event because “you get the people out in the field, and you actually have the real plant species here to show people.”

As with regular farming, not everything goes as planned. Some of the plots that were intended to show common mistakes appeared to be quite healthy. This year’s good growing conditions allowed the plants to compensate for the intentional stress. “We never expected this much water in Swift Current,” said Kim Stonehouse, Saskatchewan Agriculture regional farm business management specialist. If only all real-world farming mistakes were so easily accommodated.

This year’s Saskatchewan Crop Diagnostic School takes place at the Wheatland Conservation Farm near Swift Current from July 26 to 28 (programming is the same each day). In Manitoba, a similar Crop Diagnostic School took place earlier in July at the Ian N. Morrison Research Farm at Carman.

Because they require so much time and plot space, these events are not the type that can be replicated in several areas. There may not be a Crop Diagnostic school conveniently located near you. But be on the lookout for dates and locations next year. This hands-on experience is well worth the travel time.

The post Minogue: Back to school for hands-on learning appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The expanded facility will house breeding programs for canola, soybean and “ultra-early maturity” corn.

“DuPont Pioneer is focused on developing early-maturing products, and high-yielding products for Canadian farmers,” said Bryce Eger, president of DuPont Pioneer Canada.

DuPont Pioneer has invested $35 million in research and development in Western Canada over the past five years, opening and expanding research centres at Edmonton and Lethbridge, Alta. and Carman, Man., in addition to the Saskatoon expansion.

“And,” Eger said, “we’ve opened and expanded our (seed) production plants in Alberta and Ontario in order to support the business in Western Canada.”

Eger attributed this expansion to opportunities for market growth through the development of crop varieties bred to fit the Prairie climate, saying Western Canada has “huge potential, long-term.”

New crop varieties suitable to Western Canada’s relatively short season would be welcomed by farmers looking for new crops to expand rotations. “We’re actually breaking new ground in terms of earliness of products and adaptation to environment,” said Dave Charne, research director at DuPont Pioneer Canada.

— Leeann Minogue is editor of Grainews at Griffin, Sask. Follow her at @GrainMuse on Twitter.

The post DuPont Pioneer expands Saskatoon research facility appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Options in the report, from the newly-formed Wheat and Barley Variety Working Group, range from improving the way information is shared, to creating a new producer group to co-ordinate research — or even starting a new producer-owned cereal breeding company.

“Farmers’ interest is in seeing wheat and barley remain competitive in rotations over the long term,” says Garth Patterson, executive director of the Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF), the agency that co-ordinated the new study.

Variety development research is needed, to make sure new cereal varieties with higher yields and disease resistance continue to be available.

The challenge is that wheat and barley are self-pollinating crops, less attractive to private-sector breeders than crops such as canola. Because farmers can save wheat and barley seed from year to year with minimal yield losses, they don’t need to pay for certified seed annually, and private-sector breeders find it difficult to recoup investments.

Neither the report’s authors nor the commissions involved recommend one particular option — just that farmers read the report, think about the issues and discuss the possibilities over the winter at producer meetings and commission AGMs.

Why now?

The commissions involved started discussing the need for this work about a year ago, Patterson says. “The driver here has been the changes to the wheat and barley checkoff.”

With the removal of the Canadian Wheat Board, new wheat and barely commissions and associations have been created across the Prairie provinces, funded through farmer levies on the sale of wheat and barley.

Until July 31, 2017, farmers also pay levies to the WGRF (56 cents per tonne of barley and 48 cents per tonne of wheat — except in Alberta, where farmers pay four cents per tonne of wheat to the WGRF, and $1 per tonne to their provincial wheat commission).

After July 31, 2017, it’s not clear if the WGRF levy will be discontinued or transferred to provincial commissions, or if another option will be found. For now, research will continue using the WGRF’s financial reserves. “We’re just finalizing five-year agreements to the end of 2019,” Patterson says.

Other regulatory changes have also led to the need for this study. There have been changes to the federal Plants Breeders Rights Act, designed to encourage increased investment. There is a possibility that end point royalties (EPR) — a system in which farmers would pay a variety royalty fee when they deliver their production — may be implemented in the future.

The study outlines two strategic choices farmers need to make. This first is “how should farmers be involved in varietal development?” Should farmers own assets? How much research should farmers fund through levies?

The second strategic question is “Should farmers support an EPR system?” Under such a system, farmers would pay royalties for the use of seed when they sold their production. This would increase farmers’ costs, but also provide more funding for cereal breeding.

The study

The study, “Exploring Options for Producer Involvement in Wheat and Barley Variety Development” was prepared by Ontario-based JRG Consulting Group.

The Wheat and Barley Variety Working Group, which commissioned the study, includes representatives from Alberta Barley, Alberta Wheat, the B.C. Grain Producers Association, Manitoba Wheat and Barley Association, SaskBarley Development Commission, SaskWheat Development Commission, Saskatchewan Winter Cereals Development Commission, WGRF and Winter Cereals Manitoba.

This leads to the need for a lot of logos on the final report. Patterson says the organizations are “very committed to working together and looking at this with a western Canadian approach.”

Patterson compares investing in variety research to investing for your retirement. It can take years for a new variety to come to the market — but new high-yielding varieties can make a big impact to farm economics.

“The little things you do now can have a big impact,” he says. “We don’t want to be 20 years down the road and say ‘This is how farmers might have positioned themselves in supporting wheat and barley breeding.'”

— Leeann Minogue is the editor of Grainews based at Griffin, Sask. Follow her at @GrainMuse on Twitter.

The post Minogue: Wanna start a cereal seed company? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Ballots have been mailed out and board elections are now underway for the Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission (SaskWheat) and the Saskatchewan Barley Development Commission (SaskBarley). Each commission has three vacant board positions and seven candidates competing for those spots.

The province’s wheat and barley growers have a vested interest in the commissions, as they fund them directly through per-tonne levies (52 cents for wheat, 50 cents for barley) — but last year, fewer than 10 per cent of eligible voters mailed in ballots.

New campaigning techniques may attract more voters this year — but the styles and strategies being used have raised complaints elsewhere and leave some wondering whether the electioneering might weigh, even inadvertently, on the commissions’ governance.

“The days of snail mail are kind of behind us,” said Daryl Fransoo on a town hall conference call last Wednesday, which attracted more than 1,000 listeners to hear the views of six of the 14 SaskWheat and SaskBarley candidates.

This year, board candidates are using websites, Twitter, brochures and group campaigns to get their messages out.

Team approach

In both elections, three of the seven candidates have formed slates and are campaigning jointly. They’ve promoted each other on Twitter, created joint web sites and organized and paid for their own open conference call to give voters a forum to direct questions to the six candidates.

“Doing it individually would have been very expensive,” says Zenneth Faye, a current SaskBarley director and one of three candidates working together to campaign for positions on the SaskBarley board.

With Daryl Fransoo and Larry Spratt, Faye is a member of what’s called Team Barley, but he takes exception to the term “slate.”

“We’re not a slate, we’re a team,” he says. “To me, a slate means that you have to vote for me and the other two. That’s not the way this is meant to be. You can vote for whoever you want.”

Faye says he brought the team together to help increase voter turnout and to ensure there would be strong candidates on the ballot. “I came across these young individuals that have lots of energy and diverse backgrounds and expertise.”

Scott Hepworth, a member of TeamWheat, says he chose to run as part of a team made up of farmers from different regions of the province so they would have “a better chance of getting our names so far.”

He also hopes to increase voter turnout. “If nothing else,” he says, “generating some awareness for the Wheat Commission itself and this election has been successful.”

Teams tagged out

This isn’t the first time Saskatchewan farmers have seen slates of candidates. In 2011, three candidates ran together as a slate to fill three vacant positions on the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers board of directors. The following year, when five candidates ran for two vacant positions, the same three SPG board members openly endorsed two specific candidates through their own news releases and advertisements.

Complaints followed, and the SPG changed its election policies. The two endorsed candidates dropped out of the election and the three sitting directors resigned from the board.

Today, the SPG’s revised policy states that “1. No director will actively campaign in an SPG election outside of campaigning for themselves; and 2. Neither the SPG Board, nor its directors will endorse candidates in an election.”

None of the three TeamWheat candidates are SaskWheat incumbents; Faye is a sitting SaskBarley board member and, as part of TeamBarley, is endorsing and campaigning for other candidates.

This doesn’t violate SaskBarley’s policies, but it would not be allowed under SPG’s new policies. Given that most Saskatchewan farmers grow a mix of crops, its crop commodity groups can have nearly identical membership.

In the 2012 SPG election, farmer and pedigreed seed grower Vicki Dutton found herself running on the ballot alongside two candidates endorsed by sitting directors, and was disappointed to find herself campaigning under those circumstances.

“Putting your name forward as a candidate is intimidating enough,” Dutton says, “without adding a slate campaigning together.”

Dutton, now a sitting member of the SPG board — but not speaking on behalf of the board for this article — said she believes board members elected to commodity organizations need to bring their independent voices and beliefs to the table.

“These are not political parties we’re trying to run,” she says, “but complicated organizations where every individual voice is needed.”

Slates of candidates, Dutton believes, may not bring all of their independent views to the table, in which case a board risks becoming dominated by groupthink.

Governance

Saskatoon lawyer Nancy Hopkins agrees that if candidate slates become common, board governance may become an issue for farmer-funded commodity associations. One of Hopkins’ legal specializations is corporate governance, and she serves on several boards, including the board of Cameco.

Hopkins points out that the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance recommends that directors be independent of each other. “You shouldn’t have a board made up of people who tend to vote together.”

“The principle,” she says, “is that you want to elect people to the board who will bring independent judgment, their own background and skills and knowledge, and an independent point of view to every decision that’s made.”

Hopkins says the worry is that if a group of people who are working together join the board, they may continue to support each others’ views when they otherwise would not.

Dan Danielson, a sitting member of the SaskWheat board running for re-election, but not on TeamWheat, says it’s common for like-minded people to come together.

The difficulty arises, he says, “in circumstances where those like-minded people turn into factions. If there’s a hidden agenda or personality conflicts separate from the overall organizational objective, it can be a negative circumstance.”

This year, three SaskWheat incumbents are running for re-election; none are a part of TeamWheat. While the incumbent directors are not actively campaigning together, Danielson says, “the situation forces you into a bit of a slate because you’re all defending the record that you’ve had since you’ve been elected. To me, it’s an issue of degree.”

Faye isn’t worried about board conflicts or governance issues resulting from a potential election of TeamBarley members at SaskBarley. “Once you get elected, you’re representing barley growers across the province,” he says. “I vote what I feel is best for barley producers and the industry.”

Faye stresses that TeamBarley is not political, and neither is SaskBarley. “Our mandate and our regulations state that we are for research market develop and extension activities. Anything outside of that is a non-issue for us.”

“When I’ve chaired producer group meetings,” Faye says, “my first comment is, ‘Leave your political hat outside the door.'”

Eligible Saskatchewan cereal growers must return their ballots for both of these commissions by Dec. 2. Successful candidates officially begin their terms following the commissions’ annual general meetings: Jan. 11 for SaskBarley, and Jan. 13 for SaskWheat.

— Leeann Minogue is the editor of Grainews. Follow her at @GrainMuse on Twitter.

Candidates for the SaskWheat board:
Dan Danielson, Saskatoon, incumbent
Scott Hepworth, Assiniboia, TeamWheat
Gene Lahey, Lacadena, TeamWheat
Rick Lindsay, Arborfield
Laura Reiter, Radisson, incumbent
Bill Rosher, Kindersley, incumbent
Scott Sefton, Broadview, TeamWheat
Click here to read candidates’ biographies online.

Candidates for the SaskBarley board:
Zenneth Faye, Foam Lake, incumbent, TeamBarley
Gilbert Ferre, Zenon Park
Daryl Fransoo, Meota, TeamBarley
Cameron Goff, Hanley, incumbent
Leo Howse, Porcupine Plain
Keith Rueve, Muenster
Larry Spratt, Melfort, TeamBarley
Click here to read candidates’ biographies online.

The post Minogue: Campaigning heats up Sask. commodity board elections appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The forum coincided with Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz’s announcement in Winnipeg of the recommendations of the Crop Logistics Working Group (CLWG). They are part of an overall review of the Canadian Transportation Act, which is not expected to be complete until next winter, and which could call for legislative changes. “It’s up to farmers to make this an election issue,” Goff said.

Murad Al-Katib, president and CEO of pulse processing firm AGT Food and Ingredients Inc., represents the grain industry at the CTA review. Al-Katib told the forum that the review is a balancing act between the needs of farmers, railway companies, grain handling companies and end customers. “We will not achieve shipper utopia in this review and we certainly will not achieve rail utopia.”

He also said the grain sector supply chain must find its own solutions to transportation congestion. “We cannot ram all of the grain through the Port of Vancouver in four months a year,” Al-Katib said.

The CTA review covers all commodities, but is in part a response to transportation bottlenecks and high basis charges for farmers following the record Prairie grain crop of 2013/14. University of Saskatchewan agricultural economist Richard Gray said the above-average basis that year were over $5 billion, or about $50/tonne. “It’s real money,” he told the forum.

However, Gray noted that there may be a less desirable solution to the high basis levels this year. “The question is, how big is the crop out there?” A lower-than-average export volume would have the potential to lower the pressure on the rail system while the CTA review panel completes its work.

A smaller crop might also make the question of at the Maximum Rate Entitlement (MRE) less urgent for the coming year. Also known as the “revenue cap,” the MRE allows the railways to vary the rates they charge at different times an locations, but limits how much they can charge to ship the crop for the entire year.

The CLWG included two major findings about the MRE in its submission to the CTA review. First, the CLWG said “The MRE as a public policy tool is working.” Second, the CLWG says issues around rail service need to be resolved before a review of the costs included in the MRE is discussed. The CLWG said service issues should be separated from the MRE. “Service issues exist in all sectors, regardless of the freight rate,” the report said.

But Mary Jane Benett, a researcher from the Frontier Center for Public Policy told the Farmers’ Forum that the MRE should be dropped. “We must get rid of the rate regulation and move into a commercial system,” she said.

The post Saskatchewan farm groups talk transportation appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.