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

‘It’s another blow’: Farmers deal with surging fertilizer prices ahead of seeding

Fertilizer is an essential part of Kevin Peters’ farm in southwestern Manitoba. But since Israel and the U.S. attacked Iran, the average price of urea fertilizer, which is widely used around the world, has skyrocketed, surging around 30 per cent over the last week. Peters says the interruption in supply didn’t come as a huge surprise to him. “We deal with geopolitical issues all the time with markets, be it pork, be it grain, and now fertilizer,” he said. “There’s always some disruption seeming to happen somewhere in the world that is changing our daily prices.” Peters says he pre-purchased his fertilizer for this farming season back in the fall but is concerned about prices later this year when he has to buy fertilizer again. “We’ll see what the market looks like in eight months,” he said. Like Peters, Andrew James also pre-bought his fertilizer in the fall for his farm in Anola, Man., and he says he is happy he did. “My fertilizer bill for that (at the time) was around $350,00

From a Piece of Wire to Contaminated Feed: Preventing Foreign Material Hazards in Beef Cattle Operations

Foreign material and toxin consumption by beef cattle can lead to significant health problems, reduced performance and economic losses. Canadian cattle producers take great pride and care in how they manage their farms and ranches, from providing proper nutrition to stewarding their land and ensuring excellent animal care. Yet even with the best intentions, foreign materials and toxins can quietly find their way into feed, water or pastures. Understanding where they come from and how to prevent exposure is a key part of protecting your herd. Foreign materials and toxins often slip in through everyday farm activities such as repairing fences, running equipment, feeding hay or dealing with weather-stressed crops. A small piece of wire, leftover net wrap or contaminated feed source might not seem like much, but if consumed by cattle, it can trigger health issues, lost performance or even death. Understanding Hardware Disease When cattle consume sharp metal objects like nails or pieces

Farmers Balance Costs and Technology Investments - Tractor Sales Down

Tractor sales fell across most categories in February, but strong combine demand highlights farmers’ continued investment in productivity boosting technology.

Crude Oil and Natural Gas Outlook - What Farmers Need to Know in 2026–2027

Brent crude prices surge as Middle East conflict disrupts supply. See the 2026–2027 outlook for oil, natural gas, and electricity—and what it means for U.S. agriculture

Principal field crop areas, 2026

Canadian farmers expect to plant more canola, barley, soybeans and corn for grain in 2026, while they anticipate area seeded to wheat, oats, lentils and dry peas to decrease compared with the previous year. Wheat At the national level, farmers anticipate planting 26.7 million acres of wheat in 2026, down 1.1% from the previous year. If this anticipation is realized, national wheat area would remain well above the five-year average, despite a decrease from 2025, which would likely be attributable to continued strong global demand. Producers expect spring wheat area to edge down 0.1% to 18.8 million acres in 2026. They anticipate durum wheat area to decrease 2.4% to 6.4 million acres, while they expect winter wheat area to fall 6.7% to 1.6 million acres. Farmers in Saskatchewan anticipate planting 13.9 million acres of wheat in 2026, down 1.0% from the previous year. Producers expect spring wheat area to fall 0.6% to 8.7 million acres, while they anticipate durum wheat area to remain

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service