Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

November 19, 2009 - Article from Better Farming

It’s unclear how new stabilization rules will affect pork production outside the province

UPDATE: Nov. 20, 2009 12:13 PM — Ontario Pork chair Wilma Jeffray comments on implications for Ontario producers

by BETTER FARMING STAFF

Quebec’s money-losing pork industry was singled out for particular attention when Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Claude Béchard today announced reforms, and committed $650 million annually for five years to the provincial farm income stabilization program and widely known as ASRA.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada says Quebec has the highest hog production costs in Canada and processors pay the lowest prices. The provincial announcement promised that a reformed ASRA would support fewer pigs produced in Quebec. Companies that are bigger than the “model farms” used to calculate costs will pay higher premiums and fewer pigs will be covered.

It’s not clear what this means for the embattled pork industry in Ontario.

Gib Drury, Pontiac County, an executive member of the Quebec Farmers Association representing English-speaking farmers in the province, describes the five-year commitment of $650 million a year as “whopping” and says the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA), which represents all of Quebec agriculture, advocated many of the reforms that are attached to the delivery of the money.

Nevertheless, the UPA says some of the measures related to ASRA will have consequences on Quebec farms. A UPA press release says some farms will get 20-30 per cent less support than at present, and there could be a destructive impact on thousands of farms. BF

UPDATE

“Ontario pork producers have been after this for a long time,” says Ontario Pork chair Wilma Jeffray. She says the changes to ASRA are “definitely a positive for the industry” but “it is a little early” to “determine the magnitude of the changes.”

ASRA “is at the top of mind with producers, in these frustrating times, to have to compete on an un-level playing field in the same country,” Jeffray says. The sow liquidation in 2008 made the differences between the pork producing industries in Ontario and Quebec” glaringly obvious,” she says.

“Ontario was moving sows out when Quebec didn’t’ seem to need to do it.”

A preliminary tally on the cull breeding program reveals that Ontario producers filed 201 claims and removed 41,486 animals while 70 producers in Quebec cut only 11,139 sows.

Views: 95

Reply to This

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