Monday, November 9, 2009
Devinder Sharma Leaves Us Asking: What Are the Unintended Circumstances of GM Crops in Canada?
Some farmers are not open minded about the results occurring from the process of genetic manipulation; they simply don't want to hear about them. They don't want to hear the implications of gene-modified crops that will eventually be used for food. Lawsey, some of my friends will swear up and down that gene altering is 100% safe. They believe implicitly in the science presented to them, and it's gotten to the point that for some, it's almost like a fanatical religion. They believe.
And most Western farmers have taken a stance embracing GM seed because they say it's an easier way to farm, and it well probably could be. They claim it's modern, and it is. I'm wowed at times. Many claim scientists can improve nature; and I guess all I can do is raise my eyebrows on that one. I also acknowledge that I am often a predictable 'tried and true" selector, relying on past experience, that comes with 'getting long in the tooth', but in the same breath, eager to try new technology, argue new ideas, and trial run paradigms that stun the inhibited.
So, with both heels dug into their black dirt, it's no wonder farmers refuse to take a hard lean look at genetic modification's (unintended circumstances) that continue to pile up, not good news, folks, but documented news, and unread by most farmers growing food.
I recall arguing with my sister that estrogen supplements did more harm than good in menopausal women subscribing to estrogen for reasons of wrinkle free-skin and warding off heart attacks, but she persisted in arguing that they could only be harmless, science said so, doctors said so. She believed. Most women still alive that did enrol in hormone replacement therapy, (she died following the development of a malignant tumour directly under her estrogen patch three months after it was initially applied, which is why I sound as if I harp), no longer believe, and they have been quietly removed from the Hormone Replacement Therapy plan according to the revisionist instructions from those same sound scientists, and many women curse at the unintended circumstances that piled up and were documented in some obscure research facility, albeit, they are now read by the horrified women themselves and/or their survivors.
Science. Yes, indeed.
Just when you need it the most, science has a way of fading away into mahogany boardrooms alive with gliding Gucci techies hunched over whispered memos texted to the public relations firms kid-gloving the class action anger of the believers.
Eaters believe in farmers. In us. Farmers grow and tend food.
Never underestimate the power of unintended consequences. Pars
And most Western farmers have taken a stance embracing GM seed because they say it's an easier way to farm, and it well probably could be. They claim it's modern, and it is. I'm wowed at times. Many claim scientists can improve nature; and I guess all I can do is raise my eyebrows on that one. I also acknowledge that I am often a predictable 'tried and true" selector, relying on past experience, that comes with 'getting long in the tooth', but in the same breath, eager to try new technology, argue new ideas, and trial run paradigms that stun the inhibited.
So, with both heels dug into their black dirt, it's no wonder farmers refuse to take a hard lean look at genetic modification's (unintended circumstances) that continue to pile up, not good news, folks, but documented news, and unread by most farmers growing food.
I recall arguing with my sister that estrogen supplements did more harm than good in menopausal women subscribing to estrogen for reasons of wrinkle free-skin and warding off heart attacks, but she persisted in arguing that they could only be harmless, science said so, doctors said so. She believed. Most women still alive that did enrol in hormone replacement therapy, (she died following the development of a malignant tumour directly under her estrogen patch three months after it was initially applied, which is why I sound as if I harp), no longer believe, and they have been quietly removed from the Hormone Replacement Therapy plan according to the revisionist instructions from those same sound scientists, and many women curse at the unintended circumstances that piled up and were documented in some obscure research facility, albeit, they are now read by the horrified women themselves and/or their survivors.
Science. Yes, indeed.
Just when you need it the most, science has a way of fading away into mahogany boardrooms alive with gliding Gucci techies hunched over whispered memos texted to the public relations firms kid-gloving the class action anger of the believers.
Eaters believe in farmers. In us. Farmers grow and tend food.
Never underestimate the power of unintended consequences. Pars
La France va rejeter les aliments génétiquement modifiés? GM Lin?
Organic flax sales to the EU into the food market have been built through consistency, a continued obliging organic presence, and a well-built liaison of years of good will between {EU organic consumers + organic producers on the prairies in Western Canada = organic sales }, aka:
And I guess I am always re-surprised when professionals don't present a large view. Maybe it's because trained professionals have grown accustomed to watching one sector of agriculture being pitted against another sector; after all, it is the standby tactic governments use successfully to both get and own their way. Open season!
But the bottom line is this: if a farmer does well, it inevitably helps his neighbor, maybe with a new piece of machinery, or a donation to the hockey tournament. If organic does well, it helps your neighbor somewhere down the road, doesn't it?
What is the best way for organic farmers to continue to sell flax to the EU? What message do we need to send our buyers? What message do consumers in France get when they read in Canadian newspapers online? What kind of messages are important to Ms.Violette de la Shopper in Paris, France who buys those prized baguettes sprinkled with flax on top that Mr. Tommyboy Farmer from Estevan, Saskatchewan produces? (And you know damn well she is fussy because the French put their food first and that is why they indisputably have the best food in the world).
What message does Violette get (from this Saskatchewan article?) Read what the article says and then the red responses Ms Violette de la Groceryshopper is probably thinking, and which farmers would do wise to revisit:
#1."the consuming public is often making poor assessments of what's a legitimate risk and what is simply hype"
Violette thinks: Merde! Consumers are NOT stupid.
#2 "Science should be making the food supply safer"
Violette thinks: Modern science testing approved of feeding cows their daily dose of ground-up cows, which caused BSE.
#3. "The aim is to make sure that Triffid is eliminated"
Violette thinks: Are the same people planning the sequel named '2009 Death of the Triffid' as planned the original "Death of the Triffid"? (It was a crushing death, remember?)
Ouch. Yikes
Violette thinks: Next, the gene manipulators will be putting a licorice gene in my flax. Ce Canadien est un idiot
#5 "All of the food fears in recent years have helped promote a vibrant organic food industry."
Guess what? Eating ground flax for food was actually promoted by the organic industry for years and years, and shipped to the EU regularly, and popularized in trade shows with consumers. Organics worked hard on the healthy virtues of flax in the EU market for decades.
Violette thinks: Huh? I wanted flax like my grandmother had! I nagged and nagged until I could finally buy organic flax in France. Plein de merde Bouche
#6."But most consumers don't realize the certified organic label relates only to how the food was produced."
Unfortunately, this farm writer doesn't seem to even know that organics does not permit genetically modified varieties. Never has. And in the EU, for the EU consumer, THAT was the selling strength . NO Genetically modified flax. That's what they wanted and ordered and purchased with their money.
Violette thinks: I know if it isn't organic it's probably genetically modified or soon will be if it's from Canada
#7. "no surprise visits to organic farms to catch cheaters"
It is not in anyone's interest to pretend all farmers are perfect la la's , but I will say this: With regards to both conventional registered flax seed and organic flax seed, there is a paper trail which follows and charts the seeding and sales of flaxseed.
In organics, it is particularly difficult to cheat, because every measure of production is calculated and recorded yearly, by a third party inspector. The production and sales entries from the previous year, carry forward, and there IS an annual inspection, without exception. So seed and sales is well documented for organics. I cannot speak for conventional seed growers' records, so (ask these folks if each farm is inspected every year by a third party.)
In organics, if there were chemicals used, for example, they could not be claimed as an income tax exemption, because the deduction would glaringly present itself as an expense, and income tax documents can verify compliance. I regard most registered seed growers as honest, but of course, this entire Triffid fiasco has reminded the entire farm community that some of the Triffid grown was obviously not destroyed by some farmers, even though instructed to do so. Just to remind PN readers, Triffid flax was not an organic creation or project.
Violette thinks: Is this Triffid flax mess going to spread to organics?
Have Canada's 2008 Triffid growers been identified? They are obviously active. Are the 2008 Triffid growers' members of a Canadian seed association? Have the 2009 Triffid contamination growers been identified? And what has been done to prevent the continuation of contamination? Are the inspection players arms length? Has a contaminated locale been quarantined? Has there been penalty for contamination? Will the Triffid producers be subjected to a mandatory export quality audit? Will the contaminated elevator/terminal facilities be flagged?
8. "Philosophy often overrides science."
Yes well, someone needs to keep this particular professional attitude locked in a closet with-gag on-mouth when farmers are marketing grain to (custom grain buyers) because telling any customer his "philosophy " is wrong will insult him. It's his money. Did you ever think that even buying "Canadian" could be a philosophical whim?
Violette thinks: My reasons for buying are owned by me, as is my money, and I do not have to explain them to anyone.
#9. "It's natural, so it can't hurt you, right?"
Yes, well re-read #2. Pick your poison: cows fed ground up cows vs drinking unpasteurized milk. At least with the milk, Violette has been been warned, folks.
Violette thinks: Dinosaurs want to make my choices for me? Je mettrai une malédiction gitane sur vous
Violette never stops asking questions, does she? Good thing. The French serve the best food in the world. Pars
willing buyer + willing seller = $$$salesIt's real. Organic flax sales have brought foreign money into all our rural communities. It's been a growing market. And it has benefitted all agriculture. Thirty dollar organic flax at the farm gate impacts the price of conventional flax in a positive way. Forty dollar golden flax pushes up the price of conventional flax. Look at the converse. If organic flax sold for two bucks, it would lower the price of conventional flax.
And I guess I am always re-surprised when professionals don't present a large view. Maybe it's because trained professionals have grown accustomed to watching one sector of agriculture being pitted against another sector; after all, it is the standby tactic governments use successfully to both get and own their way. Open season!
But the bottom line is this: if a farmer does well, it inevitably helps his neighbor, maybe with a new piece of machinery, or a donation to the hockey tournament. If organic does well, it helps your neighbor somewhere down the road, doesn't it?
What is the best way for organic farmers to continue to sell flax to the EU? What message do we need to send our buyers? What message do consumers in France get when they read in Canadian newspapers online? What kind of messages are important to Ms.Violette de la Shopper in Paris, France who buys those prized baguettes sprinkled with flax on top that Mr. Tommyboy Farmer from Estevan, Saskatchewan produces? (And you know damn well she is fussy because the French put their food first and that is why they indisputably have the best food in the world).
What message does Violette get (from this Saskatchewan article?) Read what the article says and then the red responses Ms Violette de la Groceryshopper is probably thinking, and which farmers would do wise to revisit:
#1."the consuming public is often making poor assessments of what's a legitimate risk and what is simply hype"
Violette thinks: Merde! Consumers are NOT stupid.
#2 "Science should be making the food supply safer"
Violette thinks: Modern science testing approved of feeding cows their daily dose of ground-up cows, which caused BSE.
#3. "The aim is to make sure that Triffid is eliminated"
Violette thinks: Are the same people planning the sequel named '2009 Death of the Triffid' as planned the original "Death of the Triffid"? (It was a crushing death, remember?)
Violette starts humming:#4. "The variety was pulled simply because of European paranoia."
The cat came back.
They thought he was a goner
But the cat came back
Cause he couldn't stay away.)
Ouch. Yikes
Violette thinks: Next, the gene manipulators will be putting a licorice gene in my flax. Ce Canadien est un idiot
#5 "All of the food fears in recent years have helped promote a vibrant organic food industry."
Guess what? Eating ground flax for food was actually promoted by the organic industry for years and years, and shipped to the EU regularly, and popularized in trade shows with consumers. Organics worked hard on the healthy virtues of flax in the EU market for decades.
Violette thinks: Huh? I wanted flax like my grandmother had! I nagged and nagged until I could finally buy organic flax in France. Plein de merde Bouche
#6."But most consumers don't realize the certified organic label relates only to how the food was produced."
Unfortunately, this farm writer doesn't seem to even know that organics does not permit genetically modified varieties. Never has. And in the EU, for the EU consumer, THAT was the selling strength . NO Genetically modified flax. That's what they wanted and ordered and purchased with their money.
Violette thinks: I know if it isn't organic it's probably genetically modified or soon will be if it's from Canada
#7. "no surprise visits to organic farms to catch cheaters"
It is not in anyone's interest to pretend all farmers are perfect la la's , but I will say this: With regards to both conventional registered flax seed and organic flax seed, there is a paper trail which follows and charts the seeding and sales of flaxseed.
In organics, it is particularly difficult to cheat, because every measure of production is calculated and recorded yearly, by a third party inspector. The production and sales entries from the previous year, carry forward, and there IS an annual inspection, without exception. So seed and sales is well documented for organics. I cannot speak for conventional seed growers' records, so (ask these folks if each farm is inspected every year by a third party.)
In organics, if there were chemicals used, for example, they could not be claimed as an income tax exemption, because the deduction would glaringly present itself as an expense, and income tax documents can verify compliance. I regard most registered seed growers as honest, but of course, this entire Triffid fiasco has reminded the entire farm community that some of the Triffid grown was obviously not destroyed by some farmers, even though instructed to do so. Just to remind PN readers, Triffid flax was not an organic creation or project.
Violette thinks: Is this Triffid flax mess going to spread to organics?
Have Canada's 2008 Triffid growers been identified? They are obviously active. Are the 2008 Triffid growers' members of a Canadian seed association? Have the 2009 Triffid contamination growers been identified? And what has been done to prevent the continuation of contamination? Are the inspection players arms length? Has a contaminated locale been quarantined? Has there been penalty for contamination? Will the Triffid producers be subjected to a mandatory export quality audit? Will the contaminated elevator/terminal facilities be flagged?
8. "Philosophy often overrides science."
Yes well, someone needs to keep this particular professional attitude locked in a closet with-gag on-mouth when farmers are marketing grain to (custom grain buyers) because telling any customer his "philosophy " is wrong will insult him. It's his money. Did you ever think that even buying "Canadian" could be a philosophical whim?
Violette thinks: My reasons for buying are owned by me, as is my money, and I do not have to explain them to anyone.
#9. "It's natural, so it can't hurt you, right?"
Yes, well re-read #2. Pick your poison: cows fed ground up cows vs drinking unpasteurized milk. At least with the milk, Violette has been been warned, folks.
Violette thinks: Dinosaurs want to make my choices for me? Je mettrai une malédiction gitane sur vous
Violette never stops asking questions, does she? Good thing. The French serve the best food in the world. Pars
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Федор Емельяненко побед с изяществом и мастерством и разведки
поздравления с Федором Емельяненко Parsley
Friday, November 6, 2009
Will the Sourceress of FP967 Triffid GM Flax from Canada to the EU Be Accountable?
I searched FP 967 on the EU Notifcation Alert website this morning after reading Triffid flax has now been found in over 30 EU countires. They don't want Genetically Modified Triffid and didn't order Triffid. Triffid is a 100% Canada bred and owned GM label, a little like having herpes, isn't it/
Testing is ongoing on all products entering the EU , and they post everything from e-coli to birdoodoo contamination to alert consumers and buyers alike, and instantly update them. Test results are online for the world to read, and the world certainly does read all the entries being chalked up by flax and flax products contaminated with genetically modified Triffid flax. This is a typical alert:
Notification detail - 2009.1339
And the EU Alert system cranks out notice after notice about Triffid: I'll list a half dozen or so 'recents' for you so you don't think I am simply dreaming in red rem alert:
So, farmers ask, what is Canada doing?
Well first of all, nothing for so long it was if Canada was hiding in the crops. Then, Canada began to criticize the validity of the EU tests, even though we had no test or testing equipment of our own with which to compare results.
Finally, I read Canada has develped a test. Danady. But where are the results? Date? Place? Sample size? Have you seen them? Where are they listed? What makes the Canadian test results better than the EU tests Canada doubted? Do the "experts" we pay , consider the test and test results too complicated for consumers and farmers to understand? Will the results be, er, re-conditioned?
For all of you reading this blog, the Canadian Grain Commission, who is the main government body in Canada assuming the responsibility for grain grading standards, tells us on their website, (what every European knew for months,) that (Initial tests have confirmed the presence of some genetically modified material in the Canadian flaxseed supply)
No kidding.
The CGC website goes on to say, "However it is too early to draw any conclusions on the geographic presence of FP967, or to speculate on its origin."
Uh huh. Could you see that one coming? Why would we ever think that registered seed growers, or farmers with cropping plans and GPS, would be able to figure out they were growing fields of Triffid?
Ordinairy farmers are asking the question: "Who is or was growing triffid? Which elevator or shipper buys Triffid flax and ships it to the EU? Who contaminated the whole system? What's the penalty for bringing an entire Canadian shipments of flax to its' knees? What's the penalty for screwing up a future market?"
Triffid producers and shippers knew what the EU tolerance was, didn't they, folks, but if Canadian regulators are as weak-kneed and oblivious to their duties as they are already positioning themselves to be, they will continue excusing their soiled pants, "but it is possible that the actual source of the FP967 may never be identified." and let's be clear, Triffid will continue to be grown and continue to be shipped.
Is there accountability? Yes or no?
Canadian flax producers stand to lose their market position. Many guff it off saying the EU have little choice but to buy Canadian flax because we are the only team in town with flax. That is an attitude Canadian producers cannot afford. Substitutability is an alternative. There is such a thing as new growers in other countries. But worse, there is such a thing as bad will that can creep into all farm exports. Have you notuced the international chatter that was never, ever there before?
And as farmers, we must be aware of laibility. Don't be surprised if the thought has crossed the mind of Federal regulators, CFIA and CGC and the Flax bodies (who will be able to readily IDENTIFY the groups of ALL flax farmers shipping flax,) to spread the Triffid hurt payable, equally amonst flax farmers. Ever thought of 'who pays'?
Those farmer-paid or government elitists who are skipping stones of "we (NA) are right and you (EU) are wrong" tactics across the Atlantic pond, should be sent to count reindeer in Nunavit for the winter.
The present stance will erode the organic flax market as well as the conventional market, and the Canadian reputation that all flax growers have enjoyed along with it.
Markets need to be reassured. Markets need to feel that when their order has not been properly filled, that they themselves are not blamed .Markets need to know the problem is being fixed. Markets need PROMPT attention. Markets need to see the cause as well as the effect, and know the cause is fixed. An established flax market needs to feel valued.
Is it?
Any explanatory pages I have read on Canadian websites, industry or government , are bloated with self-entitlement.
The Flax Council says: "Triffid has received regulatory approvals for food, feed and the environment in both Canada and the United States". Well guess what? The EU is not North America.
Canada's message is subtle: "Look yokels, North America has declared Triffid flax is safe, so shut the hell up." Pars
Testing is ongoing on all products entering the EU , and they post everything from e-coli to birdoodoo contamination to alert consumers and buyers alike, and instantly update them. Test results are online for the world to read, and the world certainly does read all the entries being chalked up by flax and flax products contaminated with genetically modified Triffid flax. This is a typical alert:
Notification detail - 2009.1339
unauthorised genetically modified (FP 967 suspected) linseed from Germany, via Poland
Reference : 2009 1339
Notification date : 13 10 2009
Last update : 05/11/2009
Notification type : food information official control of the market
Action taken : product to be returned to dispatcher
Notification from : Germany
Distribution status : distribution on the market
Product : linseed
Hazards :Substance / Hazard Category Analytical result Units Sampling date
unauthorised genetically modified GMO / novel food FP 967 suspected 16/09/2009
Distributed to :GERMANY
Origin :POLAND (VIA) GERMANY
And the EU Alert system cranks out notice after notice about Triffid: I'll list a half dozen or so 'recents' for you so you don't think I am simply dreaming in red rem alert:
9. 15/10/2009 03/11/2009 2009.1363 DE unauthorised genetically modified (FP 967) linseed in bakery mixture from Germany, with raw material from Canada, via Belgium cereals and bakery products
10. 13/10/2009 03/11/2009 2009.1341 DE unauthorised genetically modified (FP 967 suspected) linseed from Canada, via Belgium cereals and bakery products
13. 13/10/2009 28/10/2009 2009.1342 DE unauthorised genetically modified (FP 967 suspected) linseed from Canada, via Belgium cereals and bakery products
18. 13/10/2009 23/10/2009 2009.1340 DE unauthorised genetically modified (FP 967 suspected) brown linseed from Canada cereals and bakery products
19. 12/10/2009 23/10/2009 2009.1335 FI unauthorised genetically modified (FP 967) linseed from Canada nuts, nut products and seeds
23. 12/10/2009 22/10/2009 2009.1331 CY unauthorised genetically modified (FP 967) linseed in frozen bakery products from Germany cereals and bakery products
25. 15/10/2009 19/10/2009 2009.1365 AT unauthorised genetically modified (FP 967) linseed meal from Canada, via Germany
So, farmers ask, what is Canada doing?
Well first of all, nothing for so long it was if Canada was hiding in the crops. Then, Canada began to criticize the validity of the EU tests, even though we had no test or testing equipment of our own with which to compare results.
Finally, I read Canada has develped a test. Danady. But where are the results? Date? Place? Sample size? Have you seen them? Where are they listed? What makes the Canadian test results better than the EU tests Canada doubted? Do the "experts" we pay , consider the test and test results too complicated for consumers and farmers to understand? Will the results be, er, re-conditioned?
For all of you reading this blog, the Canadian Grain Commission, who is the main government body in Canada assuming the responsibility for grain grading standards, tells us on their website, (what every European knew for months,) that (Initial tests have confirmed the presence of some genetically modified material in the Canadian flaxseed supply)
No kidding.
The CGC website goes on to say, "However it is too early to draw any conclusions on the geographic presence of FP967, or to speculate on its origin."
Uh huh. Could you see that one coming? Why would we ever think that registered seed growers, or farmers with cropping plans and GPS, would be able to figure out they were growing fields of Triffid?
Ordinairy farmers are asking the question: "Who is or was growing triffid? Which elevator or shipper buys Triffid flax and ships it to the EU? Who contaminated the whole system? What's the penalty for bringing an entire Canadian shipments of flax to its' knees? What's the penalty for screwing up a future market?"
Triffid producers and shippers knew what the EU tolerance was, didn't they, folks, but if Canadian regulators are as weak-kneed and oblivious to their duties as they are already positioning themselves to be, they will continue excusing their soiled pants, "but it is possible that the actual source of the FP967 may never be identified." and let's be clear, Triffid will continue to be grown and continue to be shipped.
Is there accountability? Yes or no?
Canadian flax producers stand to lose their market position. Many guff it off saying the EU have little choice but to buy Canadian flax because we are the only team in town with flax. That is an attitude Canadian producers cannot afford. Substitutability is an alternative. There is such a thing as new growers in other countries. But worse, there is such a thing as bad will that can creep into all farm exports. Have you notuced the international chatter that was never, ever there before?
And as farmers, we must be aware of laibility. Don't be surprised if the thought has crossed the mind of Federal regulators, CFIA and CGC and the Flax bodies (who will be able to readily IDENTIFY the groups of ALL flax farmers shipping flax,) to spread the Triffid hurt payable, equally amonst flax farmers. Ever thought of 'who pays'?
Those farmer-paid or government elitists who are skipping stones of "we (NA) are right and you (EU) are wrong" tactics across the Atlantic pond, should be sent to count reindeer in Nunavit for the winter.
The present stance will erode the organic flax market as well as the conventional market, and the Canadian reputation that all flax growers have enjoyed along with it.
Markets need to be reassured. Markets need to feel that when their order has not been properly filled, that they themselves are not blamed .Markets need to know the problem is being fixed. Markets need PROMPT attention. Markets need to see the cause as well as the effect, and know the cause is fixed. An established flax market needs to feel valued.
Is it?
Any explanatory pages I have read on Canadian websites, industry or government , are bloated with self-entitlement.
So far:Worse, Canada's public relations reply to the Triffid devastation has a nuance running through it that needs culling:
1. There is no apology.
2. There is no accountability.
The Flax Council says: "Triffid has received regulatory approvals for food, feed and the environment in both Canada and the United States". Well guess what? The EU is not North America.
Canada's message is subtle: "Look yokels, North America has declared Triffid flax is safe, so shut the hell up." Pars
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Does CWB Wheat Pricing Reflect Wheat's Ingredient Value?
Protein content in the wheat a farmer delivers, is one of the most important specifications used in the Canadian Wheat Board's domestic and export purchase contracts.
Protein is essentialy used as a proxy for functional quality, being particularly important to mainly the USA, who is our most significant other importing Western Canadian wheat. There is a wide range of differences that exist in functional characteristics throughout wheat, with variants determined by protein level and class.
As farmers, our wheat is being purchased for reasons that continue shifting, and those shifts over time perhaps aren't noted as carefully as they might be, not usually until the purchase price of wheat becomes elastic and is splashed across newspaper headlines and fluctuates widely across importing regions. Then someone asks, "What's going on?"
We've watched income in different countries affect the price of wheat, or we've seen domestic wheat production in some countries impact purchase impulse, but these days, wet gluten content and extraction rates are the primary factors which significantly impacts upon how much wheat is bought, or whether it is bought at all.
When farmers sell raw wheat, it's being eyed up for its' additional value-adding profits. If you click on Statistics Canada, there is a host of products maufactured as well as exported under 3112114 that is named "Wheat mill products other than flour" Take a looksee:
The volume of gluten imported into the USA has risen from 5000 MT to 30,000MT in 2004 So,the volume also keeps rising.
So as farmers, it is important to know that more and more wet gluten is being bought at higher prices.
Take a peek at a random class of wet gluten down East: (CGC)
The Wheat Board hired countless managers and program directors in 2008, all with salaries to match their titles, but do you know if any of them are aware that the price of gluten has risen, or that wheat is priced mainly for its' ingredient value? Do they know the price of wheat meal is tagged to inflation? The price of wheat groats is not stagnant? Value adders adjust prices to inflation, but CWB pricing remains stagnant. Farmers valiantly try to continue to increase yields.
Do your CWB's inital, interim and final payments reflect not only your high protein value, but are they also adjusted annually for inflation? Countries buying gluten from ADM keep paying higher prices. The WCWGA are aware of the value of ingredients Meanwhile back in 423 Main, CWB does not appear to know that prices can reflect the market's innovate-usage.
Western farmers keep selling more and more bushels of good protein wheat. Does the CWB price according to what the market could and would pay, laying an 'ingredient formula' on the table? Seems not. Are they still intent on trying to teach Zinglagbobians to make sample buns in that modern office with the lexus out front , all supplied by Western farmers?
Check your personal five year graph of CWB cheques. They will show you the money that is not. Pars
Protein is essentialy used as a proxy for functional quality, being particularly important to mainly the USA, who is our most significant other importing Western Canadian wheat. There is a wide range of differences that exist in functional characteristics throughout wheat, with variants determined by protein level and class.
As farmers, our wheat is being purchased for reasons that continue shifting, and those shifts over time perhaps aren't noted as carefully as they might be, not usually until the purchase price of wheat becomes elastic and is splashed across newspaper headlines and fluctuates widely across importing regions. Then someone asks, "What's going on?"
We've watched income in different countries affect the price of wheat, or we've seen domestic wheat production in some countries impact purchase impulse, but these days, wet gluten content and extraction rates are the primary factors which significantly impacts upon how much wheat is bought, or whether it is bought at all.
When farmers sell raw wheat, it's being eyed up for its' additional value-adding profits. If you click on Statistics Canada, there is a host of products maufactured as well as exported under 3112114 that is named "Wheat mill products other than flour" Take a looksee:
• Bran, wheatGlance at gluten for a moment over your cup of coffee. The price of gluten in the USA has varied from $0.20/lb up to $1.40/lb in 2004. $1. 40 a pound ca- chings $3,086.00 a tonne in '04. The price of gluten keeps rising.
• Feed, wheat flakes
• Groats, wheat
• Meal, wheat
• Middlings, wheat
• Protein, concentrates, wheat
• Wheat bran, shorts and middlings (animal feed)
• Wheat gluten
• Wheat pellets
• Wheat protein concentrates
• Wheat protein substances, texture
The volume of gluten imported into the USA has risen from 5000 MT to 30,000MT in 2004 So,the volume also keeps rising.
So as farmers, it is important to know that more and more wet gluten is being bought at higher prices.
Take a peek at a random class of wet gluten down East: (CGC)
Canada Eastern Red - soft red winter wheat varieties - Final quality data as at November 4 , 2009Now, take a peek at a class of this fall's wet gluten out West: (CGC)
Wet gluten content, % 19.8 18.8 19.6 22.1
No. 1 Canada Western Red Spring wheat - Final quality data as at November 3, 2009So we can see, some Western wheat wet gluten tests are content-high.
Wet gluten content, % 37.3 35.5 33.7 36.7 35.8
The Wheat Board hired countless managers and program directors in 2008, all with salaries to match their titles, but do you know if any of them are aware that the price of gluten has risen, or that wheat is priced mainly for its' ingredient value? Do they know the price of wheat meal is tagged to inflation? The price of wheat groats is not stagnant? Value adders adjust prices to inflation, but CWB pricing remains stagnant. Farmers valiantly try to continue to increase yields.
Do your CWB's inital, interim and final payments reflect not only your high protein value, but are they also adjusted annually for inflation? Countries buying gluten from ADM keep paying higher prices. The WCWGA are aware of the value of ingredients Meanwhile back in 423 Main, CWB does not appear to know that prices can reflect the market's innovate-usage.
Western farmers keep selling more and more bushels of good protein wheat. Does the CWB price according to what the market could and would pay, laying an 'ingredient formula' on the table? Seems not. Are they still intent on trying to teach Zinglagbobians to make sample buns in that modern office with the lexus out front , all supplied by Western farmers?
Check your personal five year graph of CWB cheques. They will show you the money that is not. Pars
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Gluten in Wheat is a Valuable Manufactured Exported Ingredient
Awhile ago, a friend brought me a small jar labelled "From the Kitchen of Ms. M.", filled with gluten, which surprised the dickens out of me, and she included the following instructions:
I blinked. I've baked bread since I was a bride, in the same old fashioned bread pan handed down for the third generation, but I've never used or added gluten before this week. I thought I'd try it. I laced the bread with: seven grain cereal, molasses, hemp seeds, ground golden flax, salt, eggs, rye flour, white flour, milk, cooked potatoes, water, cane sugar, yeast, and potato water. You can see the results above." 1½ tsp for every cup of flour for whole wheat.
1 tsp for white bread."
Gluten.
Why are cooks adding gluten? Why am I, all of a sudden, adding an ingredient which should be inherent in the flour I buy? What is happening to flour? To wheat?
Important questions.
Every farmer should know whether or not the variety of wheat he grows produces good bread. Bread is the main purpose for growing wheat in Western culture, or at lest has been, and the reason why we have toast for breakfast instead of buckwheat noodles. But that can change quickly if a farmer does not tend his market and its' needs.
Not only is there is a lack of gluten in the flour milled from many of the newer varieties of wheat being grown, but gluten from the high protein wheat we do grow and sell is also being removed and sold as an ingredient. And the farmer doesn't get a final payment based on ingredients.
I used the ingredient called gluten in my bread. It costs money.
The gluten content characterisitc shows up in the kneeding. Old heritage varieties of wheat knead well. The dough is elastic and smooth textured and bounces readily. And rises like a puffy tent. But apparently some flour is not doing what it should be doing, so everday family cooks and bakers are buying gluten.
What is is rather interesting, is that high protein wheat is grown in Western Canada, but most of it is exported. High protein and gluten go hand in hand. Gluten is removed from high protein wheat flour by rinsing off the starch; then this gluten is dried, ground and added to regular white flour. A lot of it is exported.
The CWB's annual garage sale firesells high protein wheat as a cheap commodity. Other countries prosper from Canada's wheat garage-sale, bargain-buying all that high protein at cheap prices. The buyer of the wheat can make real coin by not only milling it into the food ingredient you call flour, but by also value adding it still more in a process called fractionation, which yields both starch and gluten that have a still higher monetary value.
How much money does fractionation put into a processors hands?
Farmers lose money when we do not regularly take the pulse of value added processes, because our grain often gains more worth as agriculture sophisticates, and undoubtdly more than the price at which it is now being negotiated. The CWB export the grain, only to
CWB data and performancemeasured by farmgate income, annually proves to farmers that our work has earned us sixty continous years of garage-sale prices to live on, and little else.
Baking bread. Wheat. Varieities. Gluten.
Ask your farmer checkoff designate why Western Canadian women are starting to add gluten to bake bread. Surely there must be one of them that grows us this day our daily bread. Pars
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Does Manitoba's Peak of the Market Carrots Contain Cartenoids?
If Western agriculture is going to look exciting and attractive to all the young farm kids we put through university, and anticipate they may even consider agriculture as a way to make a living, then there must be some bright leadership at the helm who actually understand that, say, growing carrots for our dinner plates , let's use the example of carrots, can develop into an extra little something, something to use up the leftover crop, something that saves the tedium of (bagging those leftover carrots during a peaky market)
If there was leadership more focused on creativity intead of the present trend of fining innovation, say, something like hitting the (peak of the cartenoids markets) , maybe Manitoba, or for that matter, any Western province with good soil and good water would be posting those positions in article for 4000 jobs.
Eventually, somebody who thinks out of the box has to take the reins, and the politically crippled nag now in charge has to go to the canner.
Not saying we have to invent cartenoids, which are powerful anti-oxidants which help to decrease your risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease or cataracts, no, no, we just need to click on the link cartenoids have with carrots, and develop that segment of carrot farming. It would help farmers develop a parallel industry. If China can do it, we can, too, isn't that logical?
It's all in how we view agriculture. View food. Looking at and developing all the potential, that food now is, now owns, instead of looking at how to re-invent or re-create food.
Exciting. Innovative. Global.
Farmers know how to grow. Yes, we do. Are we one step away from clicking on all the links flowing from what we grow? Or do we just grow the carrots and ship them out along with our wheat?
Lets not go there. Pars
If there was leadership more focused on creativity intead of the present trend of fining innovation, say, something like hitting the (peak of the cartenoids markets) , maybe Manitoba, or for that matter, any Western province with good soil and good water would be posting those positions in article for 4000 jobs.
Eventually, somebody who thinks out of the box has to take the reins, and the politically crippled nag now in charge has to go to the canner.
Not saying we have to invent cartenoids, which are powerful anti-oxidants which help to decrease your risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease or cataracts, no, no, we just need to click on the link cartenoids have with carrots, and develop that segment of carrot farming. It would help farmers develop a parallel industry. If China can do it, we can, too, isn't that logical?
It's all in how we view agriculture. View food. Looking at and developing all the potential, that food now is, now owns, instead of looking at how to re-invent or re-create food.
Exciting. Innovative. Global.
Farmers know how to grow. Yes, we do. Are we one step away from clicking on all the links flowing from what we grow? Or do we just grow the carrots and ship them out along with our wheat?
Lets not go there. Pars
Scientific Blister Beetle Documentation
There is nothing quite as excting as young children observing nature to remind us we are part of nature, hand in hand with it, walking down life's road with exciting creatures we do not see until we look at our world with eyes of discovery and wonder. The names and location of the three scientists in this discovery have been erased to protect the invasion of their scientific territory by blister beetle fanatics. Pars
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Insects in 2009 narrow-leaved hawk's-beard on Saskatchewan roadside
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
