Better Pork - April 2005
BEHIND THE LINES
by ROBERT IRWINCASHP stands for Certified Agriculture Swine Herds Person. It's quite a moniker and is the title that herdspeople will carry after completing a 4,520 hour apprenticeship program.
The program is a laudable if perhaps overly ambitious effort by the province's pork industry, which seems to be always in search of labour. The problem with the apprenticeship program is that there aren't enough interested barn workers to start the class at Ridgetown College. So don't expect to see CASHP on the vanity license plate of any fast-moving young swine worker's sports car any time soon. The explanation as to why this program is in limbo starts on page 6.
If only farm labour were the only issue facing Ontario's pork producers. This month, the U.S. Department of Commerce will render its final ruling on anti-dumping. Thankfully, charges of subsidization have already been dismissed.
Municipal restrictions on barn construction are another issue that farmers are looking at. Last month, the township of East Hawkesbury, in extreme eastern Ontario, passed a bylaw that specifically bans what it calls "factory" hog farms. The township's gauge of such a pork factory? Any building with more than 500 pigs in it.
Section 61 of the Nutrient Management Act says that in any matter or subject covered by the Act, the act takes precedence, and that means it supercedes municipal bylaws. Does this bylaw contravene a provincial law? If so, how would it be dealt with?
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's point man on this issue is Earl Pollock, based in Kemptville. He explains that municipal bylaws must be approved by the provincial Ministry of Housing And Municipal Affairs. The ministry would consult with the ministry of agriculture to determine if the nutrient management act is being contravened. We'll be watching in the future to see how this particular scenario unfolds and what it means to that controversial provincial legislation.
Also in this issue, Randy Duffy of Ridgetown College looks at the increasing share of Canadian pork production going to export markets. Between 1995 and 2003, the percentage of Canadian pork exported has increased from 35 to 60 percent. No less dramatic is the increase in the percentage going to the U.S. market - up from 24 to 42 per cent. The good news is that in 2004, exports to such countries as Japan, Mexico, China, Taiwan and South Korea also increased, giving some promise of reducing our dependence on the U.S. market.BP
© copyright 2005AgMedia Inc..
back
Ontario's swine worker apprenticeship program struggles to get off the ground
While a similar program is in its fifth year in Manitoba and the Ontario dairy industry has one underway, the province's swine apprenticeship program just didn't catch on the first go around. But the Ontario Pork Industry Council plans to give it another shotby MIKE MULHERN & DON STONEMAN
Two years after it was set up, the province's swine apprenticeship program has yet to graduate a single student. In fact, not one has yet stepped into a classroom. In the language of the pork industry, this gilt didn't catch.The Ontario Pork Industry Council (OPIC), which championed the apprenticeship program, is trying to figure out what went wrong. OPIC board member Joe Dales, senior vice-president of Farms.com, a pioneer in agricultural e-commerce and agricultural career services, says OPIC isn't going to give up. The curriculum may have to be "retooled," he says.
The 4,520-hour apprenticeship program was designed so that 90 per cent of the work would take place on the job in the barn and 10 per cent in the classroom. People who complete the program would be Certified Agriculture Swine Herds Persons. Ridgetown College was going to deliver the program, prove the classrooms and teachers.
A similar apprenticeship program for dairy workers has been operating out of Kemptville College in eastern Ontario since 1998. "It has slowly evolved each year," says Blair Dow, who co-ordinates the program.
The swine industry had input into the apprenticeship program, but the industry hasn't supported it, says Carol Olinski, co-ordinator of program development and standards with the Ontario Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities. She says the classroom portion requires 15 to 20 students to be viable. Seven or eight people have registered in the program but that's not enough to start.
"The key has been getting the industry moving to hire apprentices and start to train them," she told Better Pork. "The industry was coming to us and saying, 'We need to have certified people, we need to have training.' We said, okay let's design the training for you and we'll do the certification. But agriculture has been very slow to move."
Liz Meidlinger, program manager of business development and training at Ridgetown College, where classes were to take place, is discouraged. "I'm not overly optimistic that this is going to be successful," she concludes. "We've put some significant resources into trying to increase the registration numbers and they haven't increased substantially."
The reason? The requirements of the program take people away from the barns where they work. "Apprentices are fully employed and paid people," she points out.
Nothwithstanding, there is no question in Meidlinger's mind that there is strong interest in swine production in Ontario. "Every year, we have almost 200 agriculture students, 70 per cent from a livestock background. There are a lot of people getting trained in livestock and swine production," she notes. The students leave the two-year college program at Ridgetown with a diploma in agriculture.
Bill Weaver, a pork farmer with a finishing operation in the Dresden area, was link co-ordinator for the apprenticeship program from November 2003 to September 2004. His job was to meet with farmers and others to bring people into the program. Weaver says the need for apprentices to leave the farm to attend classes was a stumbling block. "I don't believe there was a perfect match between the needs of producers and makeup of the program, especially how people would get away," he comments. Large operations could work around the need for in-class training, but smaller operations with two or three workers couldn't. "People would be driving (to class) and that was one of the things that made people hesitate."
Weaver spelled out the challenges in a report that he wrote for the Ontario Pork Industry Council last September. "Despite a thorough campaign to raise program awareness in the farm community, the acceptance of the concept of apprenticeship as a solution to employment issues and to elevate employee skills, proved to be a challenge."
His report went on to say that: "The nature of farm employers and the farm economy in the livestock sector in Ontario seemed to add to the difficulty of the widespread use and acceptance of this program," adding that:
Also, the timing was bad for the industry in Ontario. "At the time I was involved in this, the larger operations were going through some extreme turmoil," Weaver said in an interview. Pork prices were low. Premium Pork and Acre T Farms, both large operations with a number of barns, went out of business.
- Small-scale producers relied mainly on family labour "with little interest in the program."
- Employers with one or two workers were interested, but found it difficult to arrange for time away from the farm for classroom training.
- Negative returns in the industry left many focusing on survival, cutting staff and keeping attention to immediate issues.
- Because of these pressures, commodity group leaders had other things to do.
- Some employers believe that their own training programs were adequate for current employees.
The program requirement that apprenticeship candidates have Grade 12 was also a consideration, Weaver said, but not a major deterrent. Another problem he encountered was an expectation among producers that the ministry would link them with apprenticeship candidates. "They wanted a list of people in advance," Weaver said, but he had no such list.
Manitoba showing the way
In fact, matching employees to farms is not part of the program. Apprenticeship programs are for people who are already employees and who want to upgrade their job skills. Olinski points out that such programs are relatively new in agriculture. "The agriculture sector hasn't been geared to the idea of apprenticeship," she says.The program, Olinski notes, is offered at zero cost to the farm owner. Apprentices pay $400 for each of the two levels in the program. And, she says, the program standards are high. The standards that are to be achieved were not meant for "farm hands," she says. "They were meant for skilled workers . . . a hog producer, someone who knows everything about raising hogs." A similar program in Manitoba is entering its fifth year of operation with a current enrollment of 42 students. Mary Petersen, training co-ordinator with the agriculture and environment division of Assiniboine College in Brandon, says producers in Manitoba have embraced the program and, in a way, the program has embraced them, too.
The Manitoba model is a two-year program with an in-class component, but the there is a difference. "We're going to where the students are," Petersen says.
Students attend classes two Wednesday afternoons a month and there are evening teleconference sessions with instructors. All students are working in the industry and the requirement for Grade 12 is waived when a producer supports a student with a letter of recommendation. There is a $50 registration fee and a student fee of $200 for each year of the two-year program. Most fees are paid by the barn owners.
Petersen says workers usually enter the program after at least three months on the job. "Employers will say, 'If you like this as a career and we like you as an employee, we'll pay for your education.'" The majority of students are already in management before they graduate with the designation of "pork production technician journey person." Petersen says the program, which does not run during summer months, draws apprentices from large and small barns.
In the case of the Ontario program, Weaver says that some people who were interested lacked any farm background. "I was contacted by a number of people, but quite often they had little or no modern livestock background." Weaver says there is demand in the industry for competent workers and he suggests that there be some early training ahead of an apprenticeship program just to get people into the barns. Someone should supply "a one-week pig training 101 for new immigrants or people who aren't in the industry now," he suggests.
Industry lacks glamour
Richard Smelski, a former OPIC chair and chief executive officer of Ontario Swine Improvement, says a general lack of recruitment in the industry may be the root of the problem. "I think we have a real challenge on recruiting into the pig industry. To me, that's a much bigger challenge (than the apprenticeship program). People aren't coming into the (pork) industry because there it doesn't have the glamour of some industries."Does the dairy industry have more glamour? Those skate boarding ads on television may help a little even as they sell milk. Moreover, dairy isn't facing the type of financial pressures that plague pork on a regular basis. Certainly, the Kemptville dairy program is moving ahead, although there is some resistance from apprentice candidates who would have to travel from western Ontario to put in class time.
At present, the Kemptville dairy program has 13 apprentices and by next year Dow hopes there will be 15. The program runs from September to April, when work requirements on dairy farms are a little lower. Students spend one week a month in the classroom. The apprentice pays $400 for the year's schooling. The remainder of the actual cost is paid by the provincial Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities.
Maybe the swine apprenticeship program needs further support to get going, speculated Weaver in his report. Or maybe it is a square peg being hammered into a round hole and other programs are a better fit. Weaver proposed high school agricultural placements that would introduce students to modern agriculture. And maybe there are non-traditional sources of farm workers. Agriculture was built in the past upon waves of immigrants, while today's new immigrants are flocking to the cities. Can we tap into that labour market, Weaver wondered?
For his part, Dales, who founded Agcareers.com, an Internet agricultural job-finding service, hasn't given up on the apprenticeship program. Distance education over the Internet would overcome the twin problems of time spent travelling and the need to leave the farm in order to learn, he believes.
Weaver's report noted that management skill levels vary and the farm managers themselves need to be better at dealing with workers. "The comment by some employers that they do not want their employees to attend training courses or industry events out of fear that they will be stolen away projects a poor commentary on a portion of the industry."
Why would someone coming out of high school put in time as a swine farmer apprentice when he or she can get good wages as a plumber or an electrician, asks 30-year-old Patrick Jilessen, a pig farmer's son and seasoned pig worker 30? When an electrician's apprentice has completed four or five years' training, he can expect to make $15 to $20 an hour.
"You won't see that in the hog industry," Jilessen asserts, while adding that "it's not the farmers' fault." BP
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back How do we define a pork producer in today's world?
In a global trade environment, it is the process that is important, rather than struggling to define what is a producer or even a pig
by RICHARD SMELSKI
Who is a pork producer? Can our perceptions of the definition be a problem in communication, programs and policy? Has the definition of pork producer changed in the last 25 or even in the last two years?The questions don't end here. How is one going to decide who is a pork producer? Who has the legal right to define pork producer as compared to who contributes the labour, decisions, consumer demands, export or financial and legal obligations? There is no membership, no registration or obligation of any kind. Is tradition the best answer? Or is it "I know," so don't confuse me with your stupid questions?
How many ways are there to define "pork producer?" One of the common definitions is "anyone who sells a significant number of pig." This definition alone has many facets. "Anyone" can mean someone in a foreign country or even an alien. How about husband and wife -- who is the "anyone?" And should "anyone" know what a pig looks like? Is Mike an "anyone" or is he too wealthy to be an "anyone?" Does it matter if Mike lives in Burlington or Canmore? Does it matter if he is on contract or financed to the hilt? In short "anyone" means anyone.
The second part of the definition is "sells." Many pork producers in Ontario haven't sold a pig for 50 years, so we have therefore had a misnomer for all that time. Delivering a pig to a marketing yard or having a truck pick it up isn't selling any more than watching hockey on TV makes you a coach. "Selling" is a physical and mental activity, not a delivery. Selling a significant number is the next part of the definition. Is significant one pig, or five, or eight million? Does one determine this number scientifically or by a roll of the dice? Is it status -- being physically or financially involved -- that determines significant? And most don't get as uptight on the one pig as they do on the eight million, which happens to be approximately one producer's production (Smithfield's). We appear to be more concerned about the larger number than the smaller number.
I recently had dinner with a "large pork producer" who managed 180,000 sows and he had the same concerns you and I have about the economy, family and the United States. He was Canadian and concerned about border closures, pig prices, packer margins and the environment, just as you or I would be. In fact, he emphasized the importance of the family farm. His normality destroyed my perception of the "large" uncaring pork producer. We need not get jealous, intimidated or excluded because of size.
We could carry the definition problem even further. What is a "pig?" Does pig include a certain method of raising it, or is it genetically defined, or of scientific nomenclature, regardless of age or breed? Or does it mean market pigs such as BBQ pigs, contract pigs, culls and pot-belly pigs?
These questions about definitions are not meant to be derogatory to the people who so diligently work on behalf of the industry, but rather to suggest that the industry is changing rapidly and pre-conceived definitions are no longer applicable. There is no definition for "pork producer" other than what is in the eye of the beholder. We are in a global environment that has no respect for borders, general definitions or perceptions. Only the facts matter in international trade, and the definition of a pork producer does not matter.
So as long as we depend on the international market, what we need to define is the process the process of producing pork, not the ownership of a certain segment. It is not important what is "yours," but rather how you fit into the process. The process is easier to define and much more significant. BP
Richard Smelski is general manager of Ontario Swine Improvement Inc. and a former Ontario government swine specialist.
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back If MOE Visit You Uninvited this Spring it May Be a Business Call
This column will summarize what to expect if you become the recipient of an unwanted visit by MOE.by MURRAY BLACKIE
Although MOE inspectors may sometimes appear, to some farmers, to be lost sheep, when they show up at your farm, it is unlikely that they are lost and need directions. They are likely responding to a report of a manure spill, other discharge or incident allegedly contravening environmental legislation. MOE records an average of 20 manure spills per year. Inspectors will be responding to these spills but will also be visiting farms in response to ongoing discharges, such as manure run-off.In the case of a manure spill, MOE Inspectors are responding for more than one reason. Their primary concern should be to help ensure that the spill or ongoing discharge is addressed (stopped, controlled, collected etc.). Although it seems primary, their secondary role is to document the incident for possible legal action, usually under the Ontario Water Resources Act. They will take samples of water or possibly fish. They will also take photos and they will make observations of both a general nature to note weather and watercourse condition etc. and of a specific nature to document environmental impact such as the number and species of dead fish. They may take in-field measurements of parameters such as dissolved oxygen, pH and water temperature. They will gather information directly related to the incident, its nature, and cause etc. to help support any possible charges laid under environmental legislation. The above duties may take some time and require entry to your property or facilities. They will respect bio-security issues and should be suitably trained. These Inspectors have fairly broad powers of entry and evidence gathering under environmental legislation and you should co-operate as required. Depending on the need to follow-up on efforts to minimize the impact of the spill by the farmer or his agent and any desire to assess water quality improvements, Inspectors may return within the next day or few days to take further samples and assess the situation.
At a future date, if MOE believes that there has been a violation, MOE Investigators, will visit the farm to interview those involved or having knowledge of the incident and take statements. The Investigators, unlike the first responders or Inspectors, do not have the broad rights of entry to property or of being able to require information which the Inspectors have. You may require that they have appropriate legal instruments such as search warrants or court orders before you or your staff are interviewed or comply with information or evidence requests. On the other hand you can co-operate voluntarily. Inspectors are there to respond to a spill report and Investigators are there to gather the needed witness statements, documents and other information to prepare a Crown Brief and evidence package to forward to the Ministry's Legal Services Branch for their final approval of proposed charges.
In the MOE southwest region where historically most manure spills have occurred and where most charges have been laid, there were only four spills in 2003 which warranted investigation and charges being laid. Those four charges where all resolved with guilty pleas and the average fine was $5500.00. Although potential fines for all offences have risen in the recent past, penalties in these cases, on average, are consistent with past fines. Although not always used, Inspectors are using more orders to ensure adequate response to spills and preventative follow-up. In 2004, two farmers were charged for non-compliance with such orders.
It is difficult to exactly know what to expect unless you have been through this process. The spiller has a role to play in this response. MOE, as the regulator, has a role to play. Although MOE may be an uninvited guest, you should be a good host.BP
Murray Blackie is the former agricultural specialist with the Ministry of the Environment and is now a consultant, expert witness and writer on agro-environmental issues.
© copyright 2005 AgMedia Inc..
back