Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Farm Org. Funding.

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: 221

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dale Ketcheson on December 1, 2009 at 1:15pm
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.
Permalink Reply by Wayne Black on December 2, 2009 at 2:33pm
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.
Permalink Reply by Joann on December 16, 2009 at 4:45pm
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.
Permalink Reply by Avia Eek on December 17, 2009 at 5:16am
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.
Permalink Reply by Ken McCormack on January 31, 2010 at 3:47pm
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

Tariff tools

Multiple tools are available to help Canadians determine tariff levels and what goods may cost

Premier Ford names new ag minister in cabinet shuffle

Sam Oosterhoff takes over for Trevor Jones

Restoring property rights for Alberta farmers

This fall, Alberta’s government will remove Water Act approval requirements for routine agricultural activities involving ephemeral water bodies and temporary and seasonal wetlands on private cropland. “Farmers should not have to spend thousands of dollars and wait on government approval to carry out routine work on their own land. We are restoring private property rights and getting government out of the way where it doesn’t need to be. These common-sense changes will save farmers time and money and give them greater control over how they manage their own property.” Grant Hunter, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas The changes respond directly to concerns raised by Alberta farmers and agricultural organizations about unnecessary regulatory burden. Under the current system, routine farming activities can trigger regulatory requirements if they affect a temporary or seasonal wetland. In some cases, a farmer may have to hire a qualified wetland professional, complete an assess

Minister MacDonald announces initial list of 2026 Livestock Tax Deferral regions

Canadian producers and ranchers are on the front lines of climate change, and its effects can significantly impact operations. When extreme weather strikes, livestock producers may experience forage shortfalls and need timely information and support to make effective herd management decisions. Today, the Honourable Heath MacDonald, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, announced an initial list of regions that will qualify for Livestock Tax Deferral in 2026 due to extreme conditions. The Livestock Tax Deferral provision allows livestock producers in prescribed areas, who are forced to sell all or part of their breeding herd due to forage shortfalls resulting from drought, excess moisture or flooding, to defer a portion of their income from sales until the following tax year. The income may be at least partially offset by the cost of reacquiring breeding animals, helping to reduce the tax burden of the original sale. Since 2024, regions that are nearby to drought, excess moisture or

Extinguishing the risk of combine fires

It only takes a small spark to potentially turn a productive harvest day into a costly and dangerous situation. That’s why proactive combine maintenance and fire prevention, both before and during harvest, are essential for preventing machinery fires, which can jeopardize land and lives. Think taking a bit of time during harvest to inspect and clean combines creates costly delays? The reality is that skipping routine maintenance could have significantly higher cost implications if a combine fire were to damage crops or equipment or cause physical injuries. Crop residue, heat, and dry conditions that are typically present during harvest can unfortunately create a perfect storm for combine fires. And considering that some combines can hold upwards of 1,500 litres of fuel, combine fires are a significant hazard during the harvest season that should never be overlooked. Fortunately, combine fires are often preventable with proactive maintenance, a safety mindset, and fire awareness. B

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service