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: 203

▶ 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

Guinness World Record attempt to take place in St. Albert on Aug. 22

?ST. ALBERT – If you have ever wanted to witness an attempt at a Guinness World Record, then you will want to be in St. Albert, Ontario on August 22 when an attempt will be made to set a record for the most plow blades pulled simultaneously.

Why Alignment Matters: Domestic Check-Off and the Import Levy

When Canadian beef producers sell cattle, they contribute to the national beef check-off. That investment supports work that benefits the broader Canadian beef industry, including market development, consumer demand, public and stakeholder engagement, and research. When beef or beef cattle are imported into Canada, an import levy is also collected. While the structure is not identical in every detail, the principle behind it is straightforward: beef marketed in Canada should help contribute to the programs that support beef demand in Canada. The national check-off paid by producers and the import levy paid on eligible imports are two parts of a broader investment approach. Together, they help ensure that both domestic beef production and imported beef products are connected to the market development work that strengthens beef’s position with Canadian consumers. For producers, the domestic cattle check-off is collected at the point of sale and includes both national and provincial po

I’ve noticed a lot of wild oat escapes in some of my fields this year; what can I do to prevent it from getting worse next year?

Despite our best efforts, sometimes even the best laid weed control plans go wrong! The first thing to remember is that not all weed escapes are created equal. In some cases, weeds can survive because of application timing issues, challenging weather conditions or late flushes that emerge after spraying. However, when weeds aren’t controlled by herbicide applications, herbicide resistance should also be on your radar. A recent survey in Manitoba found that in fields with uncontrolled wild oats, 100 per cent of populations were resistant to Group 1 products, 82 per cent were resistant to Group 2 products, and 82 per cent were resistant to both Group 1 and 2 herbicides. Those numbers show how important it is to take a closer look at wild oat weed escapes. Identifying why your herbicide failed to control wild oats is the first step toward finding a solution. Start by scouting the field to narrow down the cause. Consider factors such as application timing, weather conditions, late flush

Is fungicide actually effective on Sclerotinia head rot in sunflower?

This is one of the most difficult questions to answer because there are many things to consider. I also don’t want to be outright negative because we do still have options for sclerotinia management in sunflowers. However, management is the operative word. First of all, sclerotinia head rot infections have an interesting pathway. Spores use dead sunflower florets, plus pollen, as the base to infect a sunflower plant. The spores grow into the receptacle, infecting and decaying the entire head after a period of time. Sclerotinia wilt (basal stalk rot) and mid-stalk rot are also infected by the same sclerotinia species, but it will be via the mycelia that grow from the sclerotia bodies in the soil for basal stalk rot. Mid-stalk rot is also infected by ascospores, but this can be earlier in the season than head rot or at the same time. So, management of sclerotinia does not start at flowering. Crop rotation is the most obvious management tool that we are familiar with in sunflowers, but

Using Water More Efficiently in Beef Packing Plants

Packing plants use a time-tested approach to clean their facilities. The first step uses high-pressure hot water to remove fat and meat scraps from equipment, floors and walls. Next, surfaces are cleaned using detergent. Finally, sanitizers are used to further reduce bacterial numbers. Processing companies want to reduce water use as part of their environmental goals and to reduce energy bills. High-pressure water and steam can produce aerosols that capture bacteria and spread them throughout the plant. They can then settle on and cross-contaminate clean surfaces long after the cleaning has been completed, which complicates efforts to effectively clean facilities. Biofilms are another problem. Biofilms are colonies of bacteria surrounded by a protective layer that firmly attaches them to surfaces and shelters the bacteria from hot water, detergents and sanitizers. Biofilms are hard to remove and are commonly found in hard-to-reach places. These researchers investigated potential cro

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service