Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

The CFFO Commentary:Farm Policy Increasingly Needs to Pay Heed to the “Missing Middle”

By John Clement

The challenges of farm policy used to be simpler. Most farms in most commodities were about the same size and generated somewhat comparable farm revenues. But those days have been leaving us for awhile now, with new challenges emerging about how to deliver public support that is both fair and appropriate to changes in the scale of production. 

 Increasingly, farming and public interest groups are noting that we are starting to experience what could be called the “missing middle.” In short, it means that there are becoming fewer and fewer farms in the middle of the farm income picture, with increased polarization crowding farmers into either lower or higher farm incomes. Roughly, most farms are now either grossing under $100,000 in annual income, or above $250,000.

Here’s an overview of just some of those who have been paying attention to this trend: 

  • The Institute of Agri-Food Policy Innovation was one of the first organizations to flag the developing trend in a document called The Two Faces of Farming. That paper argued for differentiated policy streams for farms of differing sizes.
  • In 2007, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario published a discussion document entitled A Place for All: Addressing the Policy Implications of Farm Size. The document spelled out the different associations people tend to make regarding the environmental and social impacts of differing size farms. It also proposes that all sizes of farms need to be included in public policy development, but that different approaches should be used for different sized farms. 
  • The George Morris Centre recently noted in a paper on funding for business risk management that it might be time to develop two tiers in safety net funding. It put forward the idea that those farms delivering around $100,000 or less in gross farm revenues be publicly supported through environmental goods and service payments, while those farms operating on a more commercial basis gain support through a stabilization program.

Although this trend has been developing for a few years now, the time could soon be arriving when policy makers will need to seriously consider the implications of the “missing middle.” All farmers make contributions to their communities and deserve appropriate government support, but that support may end up looking quite different over time due to the differing characteristics of the farm business. It’s worth the farm community’s time to start discussing the issue and to debate how to manage the phenomenon before others turn their hands to the task.

 

John Clement is the General Manager of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario. The CFFO Commentary represents the opinions of the writer and does not necessarily represent CFFO policy. The CFFO Commentary is heard weekly on CFCO Chatham, CKNX Wingham, Ontario and is archived on the CFFO website: www.christianfarmers.org/index.html. CFFO is supported by 4,353 family farmers across Ontario.

Views: 36

Comment

You need to be a member of Ontario Agriculture to add comments!

Join Ontario Agriculture

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

2025-2026 Year in Review Showcases Impacts of Beef Producer Investments

What have your investments in the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off accomplished for the industry lately? The Beef Cattle Research Council’s 2025–2026 Year in Review highlights how producer investments and input are advancing research, addressing industry priorities and delivering practical value back to Canada’s beef producers. “The BCRC continues to enhance coordination across the broader beef system, bringing researchers and industry groups together so we can make the best use of limited resources and move solutions and benefits to producers more quickly,” said BCRC Executive Director Tracy Herbert. “The BCRC’s collaborative approach is essential as we address complex challenges and position the Canadian beef industry for long-term success.”   The 2025-2026 BCRC Year in Review provides a broad funding overview by program area and source. In the past fiscal year, the BCRC received on average $0.66 (unaudited) of every $2.50 of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off collected by provincial

Pre-harvest products and how to use them

Canola growers have three primary reasons for a pre-harvest spray application: Weed control ???????Desiccation Manage uneven crop ??????????????Use scenarios for pre-harvest spray Weed control Pre-harvest can be a good time to manage weeds, especially when straight combining. The act of swathing and curing can also provide weed control. Effective control is challenging on big weeds: apply product at the recommended rate with high water volumes to penetrate the crop canopy and achieve thorough coverage. Note: Set reasonable expectations on preventing seed set. Charles Geddes, weed management scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Lethbridge, Alberta, says: “There is no easy way to tell if weeds will have mature seed, but in my experience, it happens earlier than one might think. I suggest that the latest a weed should be left is until it is flowering. Once it starts to flower, then some of the seed can mature on the plant after it is terminated. From a weed management p

Pre-harvest glyphosate staging tips help produce market-ready crops

As harvest approaches, Keep it Clean is reminding Canadian canola, cereal and pulse growers to follow proper staging practices for pre-harvest glyphosate application to help protect crop marketability and preserve access to domestic and export markets. Applying pre-harvest glyphosate for weed control too early can result in unacceptable product residues in harvested grain. Keep it Clean’s Pre-Harvest Glyphosate Staging Guide provides visual examples to help growers identify when grain moisture content in canola, cereals and pulses is less than 30 per cent – the only stage at which pre-harvest glyphosate may be applied. Where allowed, glyphosate is registered for pre-harvest weed control and is not to be used as a desiccant. Pre-harvest glyphosate may only be applied when grain moisture content is less than 30 per cent in the least mature part of the field, including any areas of regrowth that may produce seed. “Glyphosate is an important tool in the grower’s toolbox for crop manage

Safeguarding Cereals Against Allergens

Maintaining a reputation for clean, safe grain is essential for both domestic and international markets. Shipments contaminated with allergenic grains can lead to costly rejections, recalls and long-term damage to market confidence. Unintentional mingling of allergenic grains with cereals is a concern for export markets and must be actively managed.  Certain crop types can be allergen sources in our export markets. When these crops are unintentionally mixed with cereals, they can pose serious food safety and market access risks.   Common allergen sources in grain exports include:  Mustard   Soy   Buckwheat   Buckwheat is considered highly allergenic, and even very small amounts mixed into wheat, barley or oats can cause severe reactions in some markets. Because of these risks, many export markets apply strict limits for allergenic material in cereal shipments.  How allergens can contaminate grain  Allergen contamination most often occurs through shared equipment and handling system

Canada Launches First Private Forest Owner Survey in Over 20 Years, Farmers Invited to Participate

Canadian farmers who own woodlots or private forests are being asked to participate in the first national survey of private forest owners in more than 20 years.

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service