Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Video Interview: Ernie Hardeman MPP Opinions on Pork, Beef Price Risk Management Program

Shaun Haney from Real Agriculture discusses the Beef and Pork Sector Price Risk Management Program situation in Ontario and compared it to Alberta programs.



Views: 258

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe Dales on December 3, 2010 at 7:25am
BEEF AND PORK FARMERS PARTNER TO SUPPORT RMP

From a Release - GUELPH – Today marks the official launch of Ontario Cattlemen’s Association and Ontario Pork’s joint campaign in support of a risk management program (RMP) for the beef and pork industries. Beef and pork farmers are striving to educate politicians and enlist the Provincial and Federal governments to partner with them in establishing insurance programs similar to the successful pilot program recently implemented by the Ontario Government for the Grains and Oilseeds industry.

Ontario’s beef and pork industries are experiencing a severe downturn. Ontario’s beef cow herd has declined 18.4% since the beginning of 2003 while sow herd has declined over 20% since 2007. This downturn is the result of several factors including BSE, H1N1, and a high Canadian dollar, bringing increased competition from imports. With multiple economic threats occurring over an extended period of time, the current AgriStability program alone is not enough to sustain these industries.

“We understand that a solution is needed now and for the future. Therefore farm groups from across the province are working together to discuss the best way to move forward,” says Curtis Royal, President, Ontario Cattlemen’s Association. “We have undertaken unprecedented consultations with our members and the broader farming community to shape our specific insurance programs, and it is clear that creating this plan is our members’ number one priority.”

Part of the province’s broader farming community, Ontario’s beef and pork farmers are ready to partner with the provincial and federal governments now to establish these insurance programs that would protect against market fluctuations and allow all partners to share and limit risk.

The proposed insurance program would see local Ontario farmers in the beef and pork industries pay premiums to the government representing 30% of the long-term cost of the insurance program on a voluntary basis. We are asking governments to participate according to the traditional 60/40 federal/provincial split and for the province to act immediately to kick start and fund their share of the program.

“Not only would the program offset the difference between the current market price and the average long-term cost of production, it would also eliminate the need for ad hoc government support for both the beef and pork industries in the future,” says Wilma Jeffray, Chair, Ontario Pork. “We are encouraging many of our members to meet with their local MPs and MPPs and become ambassadors for these programs in their communities. In addition, members and the general public can visit the campaign website to learn more about the proposed insurance programs and to continue to show their support for Ontario’s local beef and pork farmers and a strong local food supply.”

The immediate focus of the joint campaign is to achieve a commitment from both the federal and provincial governments.

In September 2010, Ontario Pork and Ontario Cattlemen’s Association presented their proposed insurance programs to Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture for consideration. By partnering with Ontario’s local farmers, the provincial and federal governments will help sustain local food production and strengthen the rural economy.

Ontario Pork and Ontario Cattlemen’s Association have been working with the Ontario Agricultural Sustainability Coalition (OASC) for the past year and continue to do so. In addition, the two associations have been working together for the past three months on finalizing their plans and are now prepared to move forward.
Permalink Reply by John Schwartzentruber on December 3, 2010 at 12:19pm
If I am not mistaken, it was stated at the Farmers Matter meeting that when the APP monies come fully due in 2012, there is an anticipated default rate of something like 80%.

Please feel free to correct that figure if I am mistaken.

If, indeed, that figure is correct, my question is - perhaps Curtis Royal could make clear for us how a Risk Management Program will come close to helping alleviate the shortfall faced by many beef producers?

Will the repayment date just keep on getting pushed back? If so, how is that fair to those who did not take APP funds and simply financed their operations themselves?

The point is, without the BSE mediation request cash settlement asked for by the beef producers, there is not much point in talking about RMP for many producers.

The OCA has failed us. They are trying to win a battle while losing the war.
Permalink Reply by Roger Dorne on December 6, 2010 at 3:29am
You are mistaken. The 80% of farmers that will be in default was in reference to Wayne Easter's home province of PEI. What does the APP have to do with an RMP program? If I remember correctly, Mr. Royal stated that OCA cannot support a class action suit which aims to sue the very government OCA must work with on a regular basis. It is unfortunate that many producers will default on their payments, but a Risk Management Program aims to reduce risk and provide some stability for the volatility farmers are exposed to on a regular basis. Managing risk and lump-sum loans are two different issues entirely.
Permalink Reply by John Schwartzentruber on December 6, 2010 at 5:18am
Thank you for clarifying the context of that figure for us. However, I fail to see how it is any more acceptable to see such a high percentage of producers in potential default just because it is only in PEI. Furthermore, how much better is the situation in the rest of the provinces that have not had some form of gov't intervention? I guess we will find out soon enough.

If the government is concerned about the repayment of the APP loans, then they should do the right thing and acknowledge that it was their own mismanagement of the BSE situation that caused the financial hardship that beef producers are now experiencing. The money that the mediation request is asking for will go a long way toward addressing the avoidable injury suffered by the beef producers in particular.

On another note, it will be interesting to find out whether out not Mr. Royal et al will accept their share of the payout should the requested mediator find in favor of the cattle producers.

And as to your question about the correlation between APP and RMP - I am saying that RMP will do little good for the many producers who will not survive having to come up with the funds to repay their APP funds. So while RMP and APP are unrelated on the surface level, they are most certainly much more interdependent than you acknowledge.

Bottom line on RMP is this - it does nothing to address the root of the problems in the red meat industry - that of grossly inadequate returns from the market place. If anything, I would postulate that the unintended, long-term outcome of RMP will be stable but low market prices that will force constant dependency on the program. More bailing buckets would not have saved the Titanic.

Therefore, unless we can find a way to stimulate and sustain a competitive marketplace for red meats, we will never again see meat values that are responsive and reflective of today's true cost of production and thus we will remain dependent on government programs to stay in business. But at least the packers and consumers will be happy...
Permalink Reply by That Guy on December 6, 2010 at 3:27pm
Yes becuase the OCA history of sucking up to government is such a strong and compelling one - not



Roger Dorne said:
You are mistaken. The 80% of farmers that will be in default was in reference to Wayne Easter's home province of PEI. What does the APP have to do with an RMP program? If I remember correctly, Mr. Royal stated that OCA cannot support a class action suit which aims to sue the very government OCA must work with on a regular basis. It is unfortunate that many producers will default on their payments, but a Risk Management Program aims to reduce risk and provide some stability for the volatility farmers are exposed to on a regular basis. Managing risk and lump-sum loans are two different issues entirely.
Permalink Reply by Joe Dales on December 9, 2010 at 9:22am
Ontario Veal Association Presents Program Design for

Risk Management Program to Minister of Agriculture



Representatives from the Ontario Veal Association met with Minister Mitchell last week to present their program design for a risk management program (RMP) for the veal sector.

“The OVA was pleased to have the opportunity to meet with Minister Mitchell to discuss the needs of the veal sector” stated OVA President Judy Dirksen. “The Minister was very receptive to our proposal and she understands that there is a real need in the livestock sector for business risk management programming that actually works for our industry”.

The OVA’s proposal would see veal producers paying premiums representing 30% of the cost of the insurance program on a voluntary basis. The program would offset the difference between current market prices and the average previous year’s cost of production. The OVA is asking both the federal and provincial government to support the program in the traditional 60/40 split.

“We have asked Minister Mitchell to start the program off by committing the province’s share of 40% immediately” suggested Dirksen. This is the same message that both the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association and Ontario Pork have also communicated and it is supported by the Ontario Agricultural Sustainability Coalition (OASC).

“We now have veal, beef and pork proposals on the table, in addition to the other major commodities, with the Minister and now it is time to get the funding in place. The need could not be greater in the livestock sector for a risk management program that will be predictable and bankable for producers” stated Dirksen.

The OVA, representing Ontario’s grain-fed and milk-fed veal producers, is an active member of OASC, along with other non-supply managed commodity organizations.
Permalink Reply by Roadrunner on December 17, 2010 at 1:33pm

I think part of the problem is that there are too many people asking for different things and it is easy for one of the weak links to slow the whole process down.  At least there seems to be some coordination in Ontario but is it enough.

Feds need all the provinces....CFA, OFA, OCA, Ontario Pork....no wonder the cash does not flow.

It will be easy for the Federal government to plead poverty now with the deficit.

 

▶ 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