The Impacts of the Canadian Wheat Board Ruling on the North American Malt Barley Markets

Abstract

The 2011 Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act deregulated Canadian grain markets and removed the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) as the sole buyer and seller of Canadian grain. We develop a rational expectations contract decision model that serves as the basis for an empirically informed simulation analysis of malt barley contracting opportunities between Canadian farmers and U.S. maltsters in the deregulated environment. Comparative statics and simulation results indicate that some new opportunities for contracting are possible, but the likelihood of favorable conditions for U.S. maltsters to contract with Canadian rather than U.S. farmers is low—between 9% and 35% over a range of possible selection rates. The effects on contracting of the termination of the Canadian grain transportation revenue cap policy and of the relaxation of criteria for the release of new spring wheat varieties are also investigated. While changes to grain transportation policies are not likely to significantly affect favorable conditions for contracting, reducing constraints on Canadian farmers’ access to higher yielding wheat varieties could increase the returns from growing spring wheat but decrease the likelihood of contracting for malt barley with U.S. maltsters by an average of 5.3 percentage points.

Evaluation of wheat stem sawfly‐resistant solid stem Qss.msub‐3BL alleles in hard red winter wheat

“…WSS populations have also been observed in wheat fields located in northwestern Kansas, the Red River Valley region of Minnesota, and eastern Idaho. These observations, coupled with climate warming, present a serious risk for additional economic loss in more regions (Bekkerman, 2014;Beres et al, 2011;Marshall et al, 2019;Michaud, 2013;Olfert et al, 2019).…”

State trading deregulation and prairie durum wheat production

“…2 Many studies of the economic impact of the CWB were performed without data on postreform outcomes (see Alston, Carter, & Smith, 1993;Alston & Gray, 2000;Bekkerman, Schweizer, & Smith, 2014;Carter, Loyns, & Berwald, 1998;Carter & Smith, 2001;Furtan, Kraft, & Tyrchniewicz, 1999;Lavoie, 2005;McCorriston & MacLaren, 2006;Tamini, Gervais, & Larue, 2010;Veeman, 1987). In contrast to work by Furtan et al (1999) and Lavoie (2005) who focused on price impacts of the CWB and argued that they found price premiums, we focus on the impact on seeded area, which has received less attention in the literature.…”

“…Many studies of the economic impact of the CWB were performed without data on postreform outcomes (see Alston, Carter, & Smith, ; Alston & Gray, ; Bekkerman, Schweizer, & Smith, ; Carter, Loyns, & Berwald, ; Carter & Smith, ; Furtan, Kraft, & Tyrchniewicz, ; Lavoie, ; McCorriston & MacLaren, ; Tamini, Gervais, & Larue, ; Veeman, ). In contrast to work by Furtan et al.…”