I hesitate to continue this particular discourse but thank you for your
reply to my reply. However... your reply brought several funny-odd things
to mind, which shows just how confusing the potato world is.
In NB, potato volumes in storage and yields are often quoted in "barrels"
(165 lbs.) We also use cwts. Seed potatoes are often sold in "bags" (75
lbs.) We also sell product internationally (but not in the US) in metric
tonnes. To add even more confusion, we also deal with the western US and
Canada and with New Zealand and talk in terms of both cwts. and
conventional "tons per acre".
The US may indeed embrace metric someday but I will be surprised if it is
anytime soon. Americans are largely unaware of the rest of the world and
tend to stick to good ol' American stuff like pounds, inches, miles and any
other damn thing they want to. It is true that we have changed but for
those of us engaged in trade internationally it isn't really a problem once
one gets to know the various equivalents.
For example, our producers purchase much of their inputs and equipment in US
dollars yet sell their crop in Canadian $. I believe a Canadian dollar is
now worth 12 cents US. (Just kidding.)
Well, I have to actually work now, so take care.
Best regards,
Patton MacDonald
Patton MacDonald / NB Potato Agency
Tel: 506 276 1823 / Fax: 506 276 1828
e mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Peterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: rational kg packaging
Thank you very much for your letter. I suspected that it was because of the
US market. The recent uproar over PEI potatoes made me suspect that the
Canadian farmers must have to cater to the US marketplace. A British friend
of mine was surprised to hear that Canada still used round pound quantities
for vegetables. In Britain they have long since converted to kilogram sized
bags. Most people I talk with (of all ages) really don't care what system
it's in. They would just like to see all this conversion be completed. It
was quite surprising to hear people say "Just pick one system, I don't care
which". I'm sure that Canadians in the 1970s and 1980s may have preferred
"pound" sizes, but today those same people are also buying 10 kg bags of
flour and 5 kg bags of sugar without complaint. I'm sure the same could be
done with potatoes and other vegetables. You make a good point about the
overall profit margin. You may be pleased to know that most US states have
recently passed amendements to their packaging and labelling laws allowing
for "metric-only" labels. I'm not sure that this applies to agricultural
produce but it definately shows that the US is feeling the pressure from
Europe to switch to the metric system. Maybe we will see the US make the
switch sooner than we think.
Now to your question:
To the best of my knowledge the use of sections and bushels per acre are
simply out of habit. When the Prairies were originally surveyed it was done
in the British imperial system. All our secondary and tertiary roads were
orignally laid out in a 1 mile (1600 m) grid. A section of is just another
word for "square mile". A township was 36 sections of land; i.e. 6 miles by
6 miles.
Now it could be just as easy to quote land size in square kilometres or
hectares. A section is 2.6 km� or 260 ha (actually 258.999 ha), a township
is 93.25 km�.
Many of the commodity prices quoted to farmers are from the Chicago
Commodities Exchange. Their prices are quoted in American bushels and yields
are quoted in American acres (they are not the same as the British bushel
and British acre that were used in Canada). Thus farmers just quote what
they hear. The Winnipeg Commodities Exchange quotes all prices in tonnes
(1000 kg).
It would be just as easy to quote prices in dollars per tonne and yields in
kg (or tonnes) per hectare. Saskatchewan is still in the process of
convincing it's farmers to use metric. I have a metre-stick that was handed
out to producers by Saskatchewan Agriculture in the 1970s. On one side it
quotes the various steps of metric length (mm, cm, m, km) and the other it
quotes "Its a metric world!"
The most recent edition of their Statistcal Handbook lists the yields of the
various grain and oil seed crops in "kg/ac".
I work in the field of agricultural biology research. Everything I see done
is in 100% metric units i.e. kg/ha, L/ha, g/ha, etc.
The continued use of non-metric units in the Prairies is simply habitual.
Hopefully the younger generation may be more adaptable than their parents.
greg
Note: The rate of working the land can be simply calculated by multiplying
the speed of the tractor (or other vehicle) in km/h by the width of the
implement in metres and dividing by 10.
i.e. (km/h � m)�10 = ha/h
The answer is in hectares per hour. Just to humour yourself you should try
doing that with the speed in miles per hour, the width of the implement in
feet and inches and determining the rate in acres per hour.
>>> "Patton MacDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2001-05-03 07:03:49 >>>
Hello Gregory;
I cannot speak for the rest of the potato world but can tell you our major
market is the US, which uses pound sizes etc. rather than the metric sizes.
Contrary to your belief that consumers wouldn't notice, they certainly do
notice in the USA. American chain stores, etc., do not want to see metric
on the bags. Many Canadians do not share your love of metric, and let us
know they prefer pounds to kilograms.. So, for the Canadian market, bags
with both metric and pound sizes are used. This is also a federal
requirement, I believe.
It is costly to have two sets of bags and also costly to put two sets of
sizing measurements on the "other" bags. Potatoes are a very low margin
product. If people such as Agriculture Canada really want to help, they
could help us lobby retailers, processors and assorted other middlemen to
get a reasonable share of the price for producers.
I am pleased to help you get the answer are seeking. Thank you for your
comments on our web page recipes, which are about to be totally redone.
I am surprised the people at CFIA couldn't tell you this information. Just
shows how government cutbacks have hurt all of us in agriculture.
By the way, why does Sakatchewan, along with all western provinces, still
use measurements such as "sections", "bushels per acre", etc. Even
townships were measured in this manner.
Best regards,
Patton MacDonald / NB Potato Agency
Tel: 506 276 1823 / Fax: 506 276 1828
e mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: NB Potato Agency [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:32 AM
To: Patton MacDonald
Subject: Fw: rational kg packaging
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 2:28 PM
Subject: rational kg packaging
> Dear NBPA,
>
> I would like to know why the potato industry still packages potatoes in
> 5, 10, and 20-pound bags.
>
> Being a 30 year old Canadian educated completely in the metric system I
> would much rather see rational metric size packages of 2.5 kg, 5 kg, and
> 10 kg rather than 2.26 kg, 4.53 kg, and 9.07 kg. Rational metric sized
> bags would contain slightly more potatoes and if marketed properly would
> be preferred by most shoppers.
>
> Keep in mind that most shoppers just by a "small, medium, or large" bag
> when they're shopping and usually had not concerns about the actual
> weight. A switch to rational metric sizes would, most likely, go
> unnoticed by all those Canadian, or American, consumers except for those
> of us who would perfer to see modern, metric sized, vegetable bags.
>
> Even the United Kingdom packages potatoes in rational kilogram bag
> sizes.
>
> BTW... thank you for listing many of your potato recipies in metric
> units as I use metric in my kitchen as well.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gregory Peterson
> Saskatoon SK Canada S7J 3S2
>
>
