Tel: 204.325-5215 Cell: 204.361.8270 Skype-In tel. # 701.213.4412
Skype ID harrysiemens1
Categories
- Agriculture (1138)
- Podcast (320)
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Rudy Hiebert on Technology is a good thing
- Les Routledge on Commentary: Gestation stalls now lead HSUS’ list
- new york giants on Water woes pose dire prospects for Prairie crops: CWB
- Gail Kasprick on South Korea gives Canadian beef final stamp of approval for immediate access
- Harry Siemens on South Korea gives Canadian beef final stamp of approval for immediate access
- Gail Kasprick on South Korea gives Canadian beef final stamp of approval for immediate access
- cal penner on Bold move generates little no fire and little smoke;
- Les Routledge on Architect of NDP’s election victory seeks new challenge – Winnipeg Free Press
- tyson sinclair on The water keeps rising and consuming farmland around Lake Manitoba
- murrayw on Lawsuit welcome – But for who, my friend
What is going to happen to Churchill?They people up there are really worried about the port.
Yes, I’d like to know as well…
You have some fascinating and really important blogs for farmers across the globe, and I would like to introduce you to every reader of Practical Farm Ideas, the major magazine fro cost-cutting farmers in the UK.
What is going to happen to my Churchill, Harry?
First of all, was it feasible to use the port, or was it government subsidy that government provided through the wheat board? I’m not sure Ryan. You need to find that out. The grains industry has some of the same concerns about going forward that you do. They aren’t either because so much of the monopoly covered so many things, did so many things for certain entities, sometimes artificially propping them up to make the monopoly look good. For that reason I don’t know what will happen to Churchill. If it makes economic sense, not propping up sense, the port will flourish. If there was government money to prop it up, then you may have a problem.
The W.B. topic is an example of how entrenched we’ve allowed one segment of the population to become. I realize that the typical grain producer represent a dwindling portion of the population. If it were possible to expose just how many of them are actual land owners and not just working for the big corporations that own the land, therefore the people who should be reading and experiencing the emotions of the impending “death” of the Wheat Board are not reading this.
Another perspective is to show just how our times are a changin’. During the last generation, the news about the Wheat Board would have been seen at the post office and probably only seen long after it was done. What I’m saying is that the world has shrunk to the point were I can communicate my ideas about it seconds after first posted on the web.
The change to work without the Wheat Board will prove a new era; will demand a different approach from what we;ve been use to.
Harry – what’s your opinon on this report? It’s obviously been funded by those opposed by the port.
A new report looking into the feasibility of exporting forages through the northern Manitoba port of Churchill concludes the idea currently has more disadvantages than advantages.
The report by Allen Tyrchniewicz, a Winnipeg agricultural consultant, cites the high cost of rail transportation and insufficient infrastructure at portside as barriers to using Churchill as a forage export point.
But the biggest hurdle is the virtual absence of a forage processing industry in Manitoba.
In his report, Tyrchniewicz sees potential for pelleting and cubing in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. But many new markets are not equipped to handle pellets or cubes. Also, Manitoba has no pelleting facility.
The forage sector should put the horse before the cart and develop a processing industry before considering places from which to export, says Tyrchniewicz.
“Looking at the port of Churchill right now, without a forage processing industry, really wouldn’t help us,” he said recently.
The MFC and the Saskatchewan Forage Council commissioned the report.
Tyrchniewicz acknowledges that Churchill, which is located on Hudson Bay, offers some advantages to shippers in the eastern Prairies. The big one is that the distance by rail to port is much shorter than it is to Vancouver or the St. Lawrence. That saves shippers a lot of money in transportation costs.
“You get the product on the water sooner and water rates are way cheaper than land rates,” Tyrchniewicz says.
Unfortunately, the annual shipping season at Churchill is only about three months long. Forage importers need consistent year-round supplies and would be reluctant to use the northern route for only a few months a year, Tyrchniewicz says.
Another disadvantage is that processed forages would have to travel in bulk containers. Tyrchniewicz says Churchill lacks the necessary infrastructure to move and load the kind of containers ocean-going vessels require.
That said, the potential is there for selling forages abroad. Tyrchniewicz says developing countries have a limited ability to grow forage crops to meet a growing consumer demand for animal protein and Canada is a major forage producer.
The report also points out the need for more foreign market development. Although opportunities exist, Manitoba and Saskatchewan forage exporters should first work at developing markets based on relationships and quality products, according to Tyrchniewicz.
Brent McCannell, Manitoba Forage Council executive director, says a group of local hay marketers will meet in January to discuss the report’s recommendations.