Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Farm Org. Funding.

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

Permalink Reply by Dale Ketcheson on December 1, 2009 at 1:15pm
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.
Permalink Reply by Wayne Black on December 2, 2009 at 2:33pm
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.
Permalink Reply by Joann on December 16, 2009 at 4:45pm
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.
Permalink Reply by Avia Eek on December 17, 2009 at 5:16am
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.
Permalink Reply by Ken McCormack on January 31, 2010 at 3:47pm
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

Welcoming Visitors: Show Off Your Herd Safely

Welcoming visitors onto your beef operation for tours, sales or informal stock viewings is a great way to connect and tell your story, but it also opens the door to a serious risk: disease. Every visit—whether from neighbours, tourists or family—carries the potential to introduce or spread disease to or from your operation. Good biosecurity practices help manage these risks while also reducing the probability of disease at the herd, national and even international levels. It’s important to understand why biosecurity matters during tours, as well as what actions should be in place before, during and after tours to minimize risk. Why Biosecurity Matters During Tours Biosecurity planning and precautions should be implemented during tours to limit the potential spread of disease to your livestock. This not only helps protect against significant reportable and trade-limiting diseases such as Foot and Mouth Disease, but also helps reduce the spread of endemic diseases, such as bovine viral

Health Canada opens consultations on drone pesticide applications

Health Canada is looking at allowing drone applications of pesticides

CWRC review of Canadian wheat breeding innovation system confirms significant gaps and risks

The Canadian Wheat Research Coalition (CWRC) has completed its review of the Canadian wheat breeding innovation system. The review, which was conducted by Synthesis Agri-Food Network, featured comprehensive analysis of related reports and studies, as well as interviews with 29 key stakeholders. This process confirmed three crucial facts about the current wheat breeding landscape in Western Canada: 1. The Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) wheat breeding program is an integral part of western Canadian wheat variety development. 2. The current wheat breeding system is at risk from recent and historic budget cuts, especially at the variety development and pre-market evaluation stages. 3. Wheat breeding is a long-term process and decisions made today will impact agriculture decades into the future. “It’s clear that the status quo is not a viable path forward,” says CWRC chair Jocelyn Velestuk, CWRC chair and a farmer near Broadview, SK. “Our system has been incredibly productive

Protein Industries Canada partners with nine companies to boost domestic food production and strengthen Canada’s food supply chain

Today, Protein Industries Canada announced the second cohort of companies participating in its Strengthening the Canadian Supply Chain Program: nine companies that span the value chain, focused on bringing their supply chains home to Canada and advancing the country’s value-added opportunity. This initiative builds on Protein Industries Canada’s efforts to increase domestic food and ingredient processing as a key market for Canadian crops. By working with companies to Make It Here, Protein Industries Canada is driving increased food production and value-added agriculture in Canada—critical factors for strengthening Canada’s supply chain and economy. “The Government of Canada is committed to shifting Canada’s economy from reliance to resilience—building strength at home and reinforcing the supply chains that secure our prosperity,” said the Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions. “Through Protein Indust

Rollins, Vaden, and Forst Announce Disposal of Dilapidated USDA Facilities

Today, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins and Deputy Secretary Stephen A. Vaden, joined by General Services Administrator Edward C. Forst, announced the imminent disposal of the South Building and Braddock Place, returning resources to the American taxpayer, effectuating the vision of President Donald J. Trump, and reducing the real estate footprint of the U.S. Government in the National Capital Region. “This is a long overdue move to protect American taxpayer dollars from being wasted on expensive real estate inside the Washington, D.C. area when our government should be closer to the farmers and ranchers we serve,” said Secretary Brooke Rollins. “More than 85 percent of the South Building is unoccupied and there is a $1.6 billion backlog in deferred maintenance. It is simply unacceptable to put these costs on the taxpayer. We are being strong stewards of taxpayer dollars while also ensuring top notch customer service and fulfilling our promises to American farmers.” “P

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service