Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Today's Ontario Farmer had an interesting letter which proposed calculating the funding for farm organizations on a per acre basis. The intent, I suppose, would be to spread the cost according to potential benefit.

The acreage could easily be calculated from the existing Agricorp files.

Views: 142

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Maybe... if all acres were created equal and all farms were dependent on acreage. They aren't. Should an acre under glass in a greenhouse be counted the same as $800 rough pasture? Should 20,000 broilers on a 5 acre lot be counted the same as a 5 acre pick your own?

Haven't seen it yet, probably won't until the weekend so I'm just guessing on the content of the letter.
You are correct Dale - close enough anyway.
Another question would be - what about the farmers who do not own or crop any land at all? The ones who rent barns to feed cattle or milk livestock? There are so many different types of arrangements for a farm operation today it would not make sense to set the fee based solely on acreage or livestock units because of "assumed benefit".
The arguement a few years ago was: If Large Farmer pays $320 per year and little farmer pays $80 per year - does that mean the Large Farmer gets 4 votes for every vote the little farmer gets? The General Farm Organizations are suppose to represent their members. The membership includes all landowners and farmers who have a Gross Revenue from Farming operations in excess of $7,000 per year ("gross" not "net"). Each member is entitled to one vote.
the bigger question is.... do we need the present farm organizations? or are they completely stale-dated in today's environment?

if the present farm organizations were disbanded, will farmers be served better or worse?

if one looks around, i believe one will see that there are some very big farm operations that are more effective and efficient as individual lobbyist. ... farm operations are getting bigger and fewer.

is there a new farm lobby-organization on the horizon that will effectively meet the needs of the next generation of farm operations?

Wayne Black said:
You are correct Dale - close enough anyway.
Another question would be - what about the farmers who do not own or crop any land at all? The ones who rent barns to feed cattle or milk livestock? There are so many different types of arrangements for a farm operation today it would not make sense to set the fee based solely on acreage or livestock units because of "assumed benefit".
The arguement a few years ago was: If Large Farmer pays $320 per year and little farmer pays $80 per year - does that mean the Large Farmer gets 4 votes for every vote the little farmer gets? The General Farm Organizations are suppose to represent their members. The membership includes all landowners and farmers who have a Gross Revenue from Farming operations in excess of $7,000 per year ("gross" not "net"). Each member is entitled to one vote.
I have more of a statement to make, since I haven't read the paper yet--will get to that later. Generally, though as far as farm organizations are concerned, a good question would be how does the Farmer benefit from them. I know the Holland Marsh Farmers are, and continue to fight the peaker plant being built in the Holland Marsh, but I don't know that any OFA representative has stepped in and added their voice to this issue which will affect all the people in Ontario. Not to mention the precedent this is setting for prime agricultural land versus the need for energy. Our own local organization, the Holland Marsh Growers' Association is fighting this, but it seems we're on our own! The only benefit I see, right now, with OFA is cheaper taxes.
This idea has a lot of merit, particularly for the new Grain Farmers of Ontario. Since most of their members grow corn, wheat and soybeans in rotation on approximately the same acreage it would be a stable funding for them independent of yields and specific crops.

The only real breakdown is for those who grow crops for 'own use'. They would end up paying on acres they plan to feed to livestock. It can be said they still benefit from improvements in the crops, but it would be a harder sell.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

The Most Wanted Wheat Seed Across the Prairies — AAC WALSH

PART ONE The sign was up before anyone knew who put it there. No name. No description. Just a dark silhouette nailed to the side of the grain elevator, paper already curling at the edges where the prairie wind worried it loose. MOST WANTED. That was all it said. In a town like this, that was enough. People here understood value. They understood timing. They noticed things that arrived quietly and stayed put. By midmorning, more than a few sets of eyes had found their way to the elevator wall, lingered longer than necessary, then moved on without comment. At the café, steam rose off coffee cups and hung in the air like unfinished sentences. “Yield and protein like that,” someone said eventually, not looking up, “oughta be outlawed.” It was meant as a joke. It didn’t land like one. No one asked who that was. Nobody needed to. The phrase carried weight all on its own, passing from table to table, slipping into conversations that paused just long enough to acknowledge it. By the

Canada-China Trade Agreement Boosts Outlook for Canola and Prairie Seed Sheds

Renewed exports may narrow the basis and reduce surplus stocks, but rebuilding grower confidence will take time. Tariffs and economic trends are often discussed in the abstract, but their consequences couldn’t be more concrete for Prairie seed sheds. In recent months, real-world examples have already reared their heads — such as canola multiplications in California facing counter-tariffs — forcing Canada’s seed sector to adapt to a trade environment that can change quickly, even when agreements are reached. The recent trade deal between Canada and China has brought some much-needed relief to the sector, particularly around market access and export movement. But for many farmers and seed companies, the agreement also underscores a hard truth: the impacts of trade disruptions don’t disappear overnight. It is little surprise that global trade ripples affect local decisions: fewer seed options, changing input costs, and constrained access to genetics. “Tariffs create uncertainty in an

Canada Gains Expanded Meat Access in Indonesia

Canada has secured a major expansion of market access for beef and pork exports to Indonesia, marking a significant milestone following the signing of the Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) last September. 

'Phone in one hand, beer in the other': High-tech automation is giving farmers more time

Anyone visiting Don Badour’s cow-calf operation in the last 18 months will have noticed his cattle sporting some spiffy orange bling around their necks. The bovine baubles aren’t just for looks, however. They’re part of a sophisticated virtual fencing system that helps the Lanark County farmer monitor and track his herd’s movement and wellbeing. Badour is quite pleased with the investment — and so are the cows. “I thought that the cows might be not too happy with them on, but we put them on, they gave their heads one or two shakes, and that's it,” Badour said during a panel discussion at the 2026 Northern Ontario Ag Conference, hosted by the Northern Ontario Farm Innovation Alliance in Sudbury Feb. 6-7. “They've come to realize they're there. So we haven't had any trouble with the cows rejecting them.”? ?Made by the New Zealand company Gallagher, the eShepherd neck bands weigh about eight pounds each and are powered by solar-charged batteries. They run on GPS and the system is ope

Trump EPA sued over reapproval of dicamba herbicide as farm and environmental groups warn of renewed crop damage

Farmers and environmental organizations have launched a new legal challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency, arguing its latest approval of the controversial herbicide dicamba ignores court rulings, scientific evidence and the interests of growers harmed by chemical drift. The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court by a coalition that includes the National Family Farm Coalition, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety and Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network, challenges the EPA’s decision to re-register dicamba for use on genetically engineered soybeans and cotton. The decision marks the latest chapter in a years-long dispute over dicamba, a weedkiller widely used in U.S. agriculture but criticized for its tendency to volatilize and drift, damaging nearby crops, orchards and natural vegetation. “EPA’s re-registration of dicamba flies in the face of a decade of damning evidence, real world farming know-how and sound science, and, oh-by-the-way, t

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service