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: 173

▶ 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

I’m switching my wheat variety; do I need to change my seeding rate?

The short answer is yes; you will most likely need to change your seeding rate, but this is not just because you are planting a different wheat variety. Rather, seeding rates should be adjusted annually to reflect seed source characteristics (germination, thousand kernel weight [TKW]) and the environment the seed is being planted into, to ensure you can achieve your target plant population.   Let’s dig into why this is. For spring wheat, provincial target plant population recommendations are between 23-28 pl/ft2, with many producers targeting the upper end of this recommendation. Achieving your target plant stands sets your crops up for success, as crop uniformity is improved, weed pressure is combatted and resources are optimized.  Seeding rates should be calculated to achieve your target plant stand, which means accounting for germination percentage, expected mortality and, importantly, your TKW. TKW changes year-to-year and from variety to variety. Let’s consider an example to ill

How much 10-34-0 can be applied with my corn seed?

Oddly, I have had this conversation more this winter/spring than ever before. On paper, there is a finite answer. Anecdotally, there are a few different options and it is all dependent on soil type and soil conditions, moisture, etc. First of all, side-banding any type of fertilizer is much safer than placing it with the seed. Some fertilizers are safe in certain quantities with the seed, but very few. Side-banding is much safer and provides quick access to the roots. Midrow banding is the safest method, but roots take that much longer to access the fertilizer row, which negates the “starter” effect. The other factor that indicates the level of safety is soil moisture; the drier the soil, the more risky it is to place any fertilizer with or near the seed. I’m guilty of thinking that fertilizer toxicity to the seed is mainly due to the nitrogen content and a result of ammonia burn. Salt injury is actually more common and affects germination and early season growth, so applying fertili

AGT Food and Ingredients Inc. Announces Date for Q1 2026 Results and Conference Call

AGT Food and Ingredients Inc. (TSX: AGTF) ("AGT" or the "Company") announces the release of its Q1 2026 results on May 12, 2026 after market close and has scheduled a conference call at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time on May 13, 2026. To join the conference, please dial 1-833-821-0163 (toll free from Canada & the U.S.) or +1-647-846-7232 (from outside Canada & the U.S.). An audio replay of the conference call will be available on AGT's website after the call by visiting www.agtfoods.com. The financial statements and notes thereto for the three months ended March 31, 2026, as well as the related management's discussion and analysis will be filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.com and will also be available on the AGT website at www.agtfoods.com prior to the conference call. About AGT AGT is a globally diversified food company that produces high-quality, nutritious products for everyday consumption. Our products reach consumers in 127 countries, and our global footprint consists of 39 state-of-the

Rising Waters on the Canadian Prairies and Beyond

With flooding affecting several Canadian provinces, farmers are being urged to act quickly to protect crops, animals, infrastructure, and long-term soil health.

Is Your Bull Ready? A Year-Round Approach to Bull Management

Every cow-calf producer has either lived it or knows someone who has. Breeding season wraps up and everything looks fine, until fall preg-checks tell a different story: open cows, late calvers and a breeding window that slipped wider than planned. While cow nutrition, body condition and management are frequently evaluated, one critical factor is often underestimated—the bull. Most frustrating is that there are often no obvious warning signs during breeding. The bull was turned out, was covering cows and looked the part. On the surface, everything appeared normal. That’s exactly why a bull breeding soundness evaluation (BBSE) matters more than many producers realize. It is one of the few opportunities to take some guesswork out of bull performance. On a cow-calf operation, bulls get a lot of attention for a couple of months out of the year and very little once breeding season wraps up. The reality is that a bull’s value doesn’t start on turnout day, and it definitely doesn’t end when

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service