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: 125

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

Tariffs In Key Markets Underscore Urgent Need For Action

Today, Pulse Canada released the following statement in response to India’s decision to impose a 30% tariff on pea imports. “While Canada’s pea export program to India got off to a good start this fall, the recently announced tariff will challenge future sales, and the impact will be felt across the industry. “Canada’s pulse industry needs progress from the federal government on removing tariffs that threaten our competitiveness and damage our global reputation. While the government may not be able to influence domestic policies in other markets, we do expect it to resolve issues within its control. “The Government of China has been clear that its 100% tariff on Canadian peas is a retaliatory measure and will require a negotiated solution. We are hopeful that meetings this week will mark a timely and important step toward a resolution that allows Canadian peas back into the Chinese market. “Canadian growers and exporters have worked for decades to build trusted relationships with c

SARM’s Huber wants Western concerns heard in Ottawa

The head of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities is wanting to see Western concerns addressed by the federal government. “We've been neglected for 10-plus years in western Canada, and Saskatchewan is in western Canada,” said Bill Huber, SARM president, to reporters following his morning address at the mid-term meetings in Regina. “And we've got an agriculture industry here that's struggling right now with tariffs and trade, and our farmers are really suffering because of the non-movement of grain, especially canola seed, to China. We've got one of our biggest trading partners just across the 49th parallel that we do have to do business with [the USA]. They're the closest and one of our largest trading partners. And we need to see those goods, livestock, beef, cattle, pigs, pork, those things continue to cross that border. So we need those exports.” Huber said it was also "disappointing to see that there's a $112 million decrease over the next year in agriculture spen

APAS expresses mixed feelings on Tuesday's federal budget

The President of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) has mixed feelings about Tuesday's federal budget. Bill Prybylski, who farms in the Willowbrook area, was pleased to see that agriculture was actually mentioned in the budget. He says there were some positives in the budget, like investment in infrastructure, the reinstatement of the accelerated capital cost allowance, and red tape reduction. Prybylski was also pleased to see the permanent reversal of the Capital Gains tax increase. But he says the announced changes to AgriStability won't make a difference to most producers, dealing with canola, pea and pork tariffs. Prybylski notes budget details are still quite sparse, so there's more work to be done in studying the document. He's also worried about possible budget cuts to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which could affect agriculture research.

Ag in the 2025 federal budget

The House is expected to vote on the budget on Nov. 17

Statement from FVGC President, Marcus Janzen

The Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada (FVGC) President, Marcus Janzen, wishes to announce that Massimo Bergamini will begin a transition from his role as Executive Director as he moves toward retirement. The Board is grateful for his leadership and for the organizational achievements made during his tenure.

© 2025   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service