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: 228

▶ 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

North American Agriculture Leaders Back USMCA and Long-Term Trade Stability

Agriculture leaders from across North America have renewed their commitment to maintaining predictable trade rules and strengthening cooperation on animal health, plant protection and rural development.

BASF Appoints Leta LaRush to Lead U.S. Ag Business Amid Major Restructuring

BASF Agricultural Solutions has unveiled a new organizational structure aimed at improving customer responsiveness and supporting its transition toward operating as an independent business.

Canada's Productivity Mega Deduction Could Fuel New Farm and Ag-Tech Investment

The federal government says its new Productivity Mega Deduction represents one of the most significant tax changes in decades, expanding immediate write-offs for business investments.

Agtech innovators to share validation insights at Agriculture Enlightened 2026

Testing and validating new technologies is an essential part of scaling an agtech business. This work being done at EMILI’s Innovation Farms and AIVA Network’s Validation Hubs helps innovators commercialize their products and increases the adoption of their solutions.  During Agriculture Enlightened, Canada’s Agtech Conference, hear from Marcel Kringe, founder and CEO of BranValt, and Katie Friesen, founder and CEO of FarmerTitan, about their experience validating their technologies through the AIVA Network this season. The pair will be joined by Peter Frey, CEO of Spade Technologies, and Darren Anderson, CEO of Vive Crop Protection for a discussion around what they have learned through the validation process in this panel moderated by Chelsea Platzke, board chair of BioTalent.  Marcel Kringe grew up on a family farm in Germany, where he pursued an ag engineering degree. Work and travel studies in Canada, Russia and Brazil led him to move to Canada. He learned English on the go while

Selling grain to an unlicensed buyer: Approval and sampling requirements

Before selling grain to an unlicensed buyer, producers with AFSC production insurance should understand the requirements that apply and the steps they need to take to protect their coverage. Agriculture Financial Services (AFSC) defines a licensed buyer as a grain buyer licensed by the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) as either a primary elevator or terminal elevator. AFSC only accepts receipted grades on sales from buyers holding one of these licence types. The Commission offers several classes of licences, each with different requirements. Primary and terminal elevator are the only licence classes required to sample grain upon receipt and resolve grade and dockage issues through the CGC. If grain is sold to a grain dealer, private buyer or process elevator before a post-harvest inspection is completed, AFSC may use the client’s samples. However, clients must contact their preferred branch office before moving any grain and obtain approval to collect samples for grading purposes. I

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service