Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Supply Management for Pigs

Here's a story from CFCO radio in Chatham...

Hog producers who had been hoping for a supply managed system, similar to the dairy and egg boards may be disappointed with a study out of Ridgetown. Researcher Ken McEwan says there are probably too many negatives to let the idea work. Partially that’s because Canadian farmers produce a lot more pork than the nation needs. Overall more than 60 per cent of the hogs, or pork products that originate in Canada are exported. In Ontario the figure is closer to 40 per cent but McEwan says it still means about half the industry would have to be shut down. McEwan says it would also shut a lot of processing and packaging companies that fill export demand. A third problem would be potential retaliation. McEwan says trade restrictions could be contrary to the requirements of Nafta and WTO.

http://farmradio.ca/2009/09/supply-managed-pork-likely-a-non-starter/


Do the challenges really outweigh the benefits? It's time to look harder at this rather than give up because it might be tough. ITS TOUGH NOW!!!

Views: 663

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Roadrunner on September 24, 2009 at 1:43pm
I think it is likely a little too late...time to do it was 40 years ago before the industry was so interconnected through out North America....
Permalink Reply by John Beardsley on September 27, 2009 at 11:09am
ken is assuming you would give up on exports and close the borders. what about setting up a northamerican sm plan. and if us won't join then try a bilateral with mexico. it could also limit pork production for export. you are absolutely right about don't give up. challenge authority. if the status quo ain't working then change it. who doesn't want less work and more money?
Permalink Reply by Wayne Black on September 27, 2009 at 1:55pm
If you merge US and CDN markets to create a SM industry it would create an economic crisis on it's own.
"China is both the world's largest producer and consumer of pork products. In 2008, China produced 46.2 million tons of pork, accounting for 45 percent of total output of world pork production.
Despite China's high self-sufficiency rate in pork production, it still imports a considerable amount of pork each year from the US, the EU and Canada, which are the three top pork exporters to China."
Exports from the US to China in the first six months of 2009 was 56,785 tons of pork (down 70% from 2008). In 2008 the US was a NET exporter of almost 2 million tons of pork. In 1994 they were a net importer.
So not only will CDN producers have to cut back - with a North American SM scheme the US producers will also have to cut back substantially. (mind you the bulk of the imports and export numbers are with Mexico and Canada - China and Russia will still suffer to a mild degree).
Tough industry to be in when productivity gains are exceeding consumption gains.

John Beardsley said:
ken is assuming you would give up on exports and close the borders. what about setting up a northamerican sm plan. and if us won't join then try a bilateral with mexico. it could also limit pork production for export. you are absolutely right about don't give up. challenge authority. if the status quo ain't working then change it. who doesn't want less work and more money?
Permalink Reply by pigsrgr8 on September 28, 2009 at 4:34am
I am glad someone took the time to have a look at this.....the current system is not working for alot of the producers who are being financially destroyed.

I like the idea of having revenue locked in with a cost of production formula.

Sure there are alot of reasons against setting a system like dairy but we need to look for new ways of doing business...the old ways are not sustainable for most Ontario pork producers.
Permalink Reply by John Beardsley on September 29, 2009 at 9:24am
it is never too late to fix something that is broken something that isn't working. all you need is someone with the balls to see it through.

pigsrgr8 said:
I am glad someone took the time to have a look at this.....the current system is not working for alot of the producers who are being financially destroyed.

I like the idea of having revenue locked in with a cost of production formula.

Sure there are alot of reasons against setting a system like dairy but we need to look for new ways of doing business...the old ways are not sustainable for most Ontario pork producers.
Permalink Reply by JoAnne Caughill on October 21, 2009 at 8:38am
Ken's report looked in Supply Management on a Canada-wide basis, which the other systems (Dairy, chicken, etc) eventually ended up being - national. I understand that they did not all start out that way - but were Provincial first. If this is true, Ontario is well-positioned for a Provincial SM system. Any comments???
Permalink Reply by pigsrgr8 on October 22, 2009 at 10:02am
Does anyone have a link to Ken M's report?
Permalink Reply by Andrew Campbell on October 23, 2009 at 3:40am
Try this...

http://www.ontariopork.on.ca/User/Docs/Research/reports/09-23-09_su...

pigsrgr8 said:
Does anyone have a link to Ken M's report?
Permalink Reply by Andrew Campbell on October 28, 2009 at 6:07am
Here is another new report from the George Morris Centre - and their thoughts on SM in beef and pork.

http://www.georgemorris.org/aspx/Public/Utils/DbFileViewerPopup.asp...

pigsrgr8 said:
Does anyone have a link to Ken M's report?
Permalink Reply by Roadrunner on October 29, 2009 at 12:38pm
Here is the GM plan summed up after they say Supply Management won't work - their suggestions will work great....lets do this......LOL


At this very difficult point in time, the Canadian beef and pork segments would be better served
by focusing on more tractable alternatives than supply management. For the reasons outlined
above, supply management currently serves as a distraction to more realistic approaches for
addressing challenges in beef and pork marketing. Proposals that involve licensing of producers
or production capacity appear to stop short of a supply management scheme. However, there is
no marketing-related reason to license if there is no intent to regulate production, and the
apparent reason to regulate production is to influence prices1. The same points that bring into
question the efficacy and practicality of implementing a supply management scheme apply, in a
more general sense, to licensing.
The beef and pork segments need to challenge themselves and pursue marketing alternatives that
leverage Canada’s natural advantages as exporters, and set aside apparently simple (but
practically difficult) solutions like supply management. This will require focus, as alternatives
will be more challenging to envision and develop than a mandated supply management scheme.
This will likely involve different relationships between producers and processors; reckoning with
a structurally stronger currency and lagging processing efficiency, and an assimilation of
Canada’s natural resource endowments, product information system, and regulatory inspection
system advantages. As it stands, the supply management debate fragments the beef and pork
segments and detracts from this focus.
1
Permalink Reply by Joe Dales on November 10, 2009 at 4:05am
Shaun Haney forwarded his audio interview with Kevin Grier from the George Morris Centre.

Here is the link so you can listen to the interview.

http://realagriculture.com/2009/11/09/should-canadian-pork-and-beef...

Here is Shaun's Opinion on the issue:

"In my opinion neither the pork or the beef business in Canada will ever become supply managed for many of the same reasons that Kevin discusses in the interview. Never mind that I don’t think you would ever get the domestic stakeholders to buy in, but the bigger obstacle is getting this sort of massive change past the WTO. Canada will be under growing pressure to absolve its dairy and chicken quotas in the future so adding to the list of supply managed industries is slim at best in today’s environment."
Permalink Reply by pigsrgr8 on November 18, 2009 at 3:30am
So supply management won't work?

What other options are out there...the news is getting worse each day.

This is a north america issue...I saw Big Sky in SK is asking for creditor protection and in the US big players like Coharie Farms and Coastal Plains have filed for bankruptcy....

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

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

I’m switching my wheat variety; do I need to change my seeding rate?

The short answer is yes; you will most likely need to change your seeding rate, but this is not just because you are planting a different wheat variety. Rather, seeding rates should be adjusted annually to reflect seed source characteristics (germination, thousand kernel weight [TKW]) and the environment the seed is being planted into, to ensure you can achieve your target plant population.   Let’s dig into why this is. For spring wheat, provincial target plant population recommendations are between 23-28 pl/ft2, with many producers targeting the upper end of this recommendation. Achieving your target plant stands sets your crops up for success, as crop uniformity is improved, weed pressure is combatted and resources are optimized.  Seeding rates should be calculated to achieve your target plant stand, which means accounting for germination percentage, expected mortality and, importantly, your TKW. TKW changes year-to-year and from variety to variety. Let’s consider an example to ill

How much 10-34-0 can be applied with my corn seed?

Oddly, I have had this conversation more this winter/spring than ever before. On paper, there is a finite answer. Anecdotally, there are a few different options and it is all dependent on soil type and soil conditions, moisture, etc. First of all, side-banding any type of fertilizer is much safer than placing it with the seed. Some fertilizers are safe in certain quantities with the seed, but very few. Side-banding is much safer and provides quick access to the roots. Midrow banding is the safest method, but roots take that much longer to access the fertilizer row, which negates the “starter” effect. The other factor that indicates the level of safety is soil moisture; the drier the soil, the more risky it is to place any fertilizer with or near the seed. I’m guilty of thinking that fertilizer toxicity to the seed is mainly due to the nitrogen content and a result of ammonia burn. Salt injury is actually more common and affects germination and early season growth, so applying fertili

AGT Food and Ingredients Inc. Announces Date for Q1 2026 Results and Conference Call

AGT Food and Ingredients Inc. (TSX: AGTF) ("AGT" or the "Company") announces the release of its Q1 2026 results on May 12, 2026 after market close and has scheduled a conference call at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time on May 13, 2026. To join the conference, please dial 1-833-821-0163 (toll free from Canada & the U.S.) or +1-647-846-7232 (from outside Canada & the U.S.). An audio replay of the conference call will be available on AGT's website after the call by visiting www.agtfoods.com. The financial statements and notes thereto for the three months ended March 31, 2026, as well as the related management's discussion and analysis will be filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.com and will also be available on the AGT website at www.agtfoods.com prior to the conference call. About AGT AGT is a globally diversified food company that produces high-quality, nutritious products for everyday consumption. Our products reach consumers in 127 countries, and our global footprint consists of 39 state-of-the

Rising Waters on the Canadian Prairies and Beyond

With flooding affecting several Canadian provinces, farmers are being urged to act quickly to protect crops, animals, infrastructure, and long-term soil health.

Is Your Bull Ready? A Year-Round Approach to Bull Management

Every cow-calf producer has either lived it or knows someone who has. Breeding season wraps up and everything looks fine, until fall preg-checks tell a different story: open cows, late calvers and a breeding window that slipped wider than planned. While cow nutrition, body condition and management are frequently evaluated, one critical factor is often underestimated—the bull. Most frustrating is that there are often no obvious warning signs during breeding. The bull was turned out, was covering cows and looked the part. On the surface, everything appeared normal. That’s exactly why a bull breeding soundness evaluation (BBSE) matters more than many producers realize. It is one of the few opportunities to take some guesswork out of bull performance. On a cow-calf operation, bulls get a lot of attention for a couple of months out of the year and very little once breeding season wraps up. The reality is that a bull’s value doesn’t start on turnout day, and it definitely doesn’t end when

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service