A proposed merger between Alberta Wheat and Alberta Barley isn’t a done deal yet — but the process is gathering steam with producer voting just weeks away.
“We’ve had pretty resounding positive feedback to continue moving forward with this process, but we’re still looking for feedback from producers,” said Todd Hames, chair of Alberta Wheat.
“That process is happening in the regional meetings as we speak, and that’s an opportunity for farmers to come out and hear about the amalgamation process and provide any feedback.”
The two cereal groups merged their leadership and administrative teams in 2018, saving $400,000 annually. A proposal to consider a single organization with one board arose a year later, followed by a study by a committee and finally producer consultations.
So far, the response has mostly been positive, particularly in regard to simplifying the structure of the two organizations, said Hames, who farms near Lloydminster.
“There are going to be some cost savings by amalgamating the two commissions,” he said. “The two commissions are working very closely together now under the same management and staff. The work is virtually the same for both crops, with the exception of the research file.”
A single cereal organization would also have more influence, he said.
“It would give Alberta cereal producers a stronger, more unified voice, and I think that’s a benefit for farmers.”
But feedback from two online town hall meetings and an online survey over the summer show that farmers still have some questions about how it will all work in practice.
The main concern is over the disparity in the budgets for both commissions. Alberta Wheat’s checkoff revenues are more than three times those of Alberta Barley, and if the merger goes forward, that money will all go into one pot.
“In the survey, there was about a 50/50 split over the different-size budgets of wheat and barley,” said Hames. “That also came out in the town halls, with the wheat producers worried about the wheat money being diluted into barley and the barley producers worried about having a smaller voice.”
But Hames said he doesn’t think there’s a risk of losing the barley voice at the table.
“As we’ve seen at Alberta Wheat, we have multiple wheat crops under one umbrella. That wasn’t the case initially, but we feel that it’s worked quite well,” he said. “So I’m confident that barley and wheat can each retain their voice and their brand.”
A slimmed-down governance structure (with two directors and four delegates in each of six regions) should help with that, he added.
“I think that’s a positive thing to make sure we’ve got a mixture of people growing wheat or barley across the province,” he said. “That will hopefully relieve people’s worries that we won’t represent both crops well. I think with all those voices, we can make sure that we hear the concerns of farmers.”
The two commissions have also proposed a new investment model based on merit (aside from money spent on breeding programs, which will remain acreage based).
“What that means is that the money would go to where the best value for producers is, rather than dividing it based on the levy that was collected for wheat or barley specifically,” he said, adding the two groups already do that to a degree.
“It’s not unusual for Alberta Wheat and Alberta Barley to share expenses on research projects. A lot of the research we do does cross all commodities. It’s good for everybody, regardless of what cereal you’re in.”
Votes on the proposed merger will take place at upcoming AGMs — Alberta Barley’s is on Dec. 8 while Alberta Wheat’s is on Jan. 26.
“We’ve heard producers’ concerns about the amalgamation, and I think it’s important to understand that we’re not there yet,” said Hames. “It could all be over in December if the Alberta Barley Commission votes it down.”
Hames is urging members of both organizations to consider the pros and cons and then make their voices heard.
“That’s where producers need to ask questions and do what they think is best for farmers in Alberta,” he said. “If we have a plebiscite, we really need to get as many producers to vote as possible so that we’re making sure we’re doing what our farmers want us to do. We want to hear your voice.”
