by SUSAN MANN
Canada’s supply management system is limiting its most efficient farmers’ ability to grow because they’re forced to focus on the small, slow-growing Canadian market rather export markets, says the Conference Board of Canada.
Since dairy consumption in Canada is stagnant, export markets are key to industry growth, the board says in a Feb. 27 press release. The release is the first of two on research the board did on reforming Canada’s supply management system. The next press release is scheduled to be issued Monday, while the full 110-page report with recommendations will come out Thursday, March 6.
The report is called Canada’s Reforming Dairy Supply Management: the Case for Growth. This report is one of 20 being produced by the Centre for Food in Canada, an initiative launched by the Conference Board. The centre has been engaging various stakeholders, such as officials from business, government and academia along with associations and communities in creating a Canadian food strategy.
In the supply management release, the Conference Board says Canada is largely shut out of fast growing international markets for dairy products for a couple of reasons. One is a large portion of investment in the industry is tied up in production quotas rather than productive assets. The other is Canada’s exports are limited because the World Trade Organization (WTO) considers supply management policy to be a form of a subsidy, the release says.
But “Canada’s most efficient producers are already among the world’s best and there is every reason to believe that they can compete globally,” the release says.
Richard Doyle, executive director of Dairy Farmers of Canada, says its not supply management that’s holding farmers back from exporting. “We lost a panel (decision) at the WTO that said that if you maintain a higher price domestically than the world price, then any exports at the lower price is a subsidy. We’re limited by that.”
He also notes that Canada is a northern country with higher production costs than many other countries that set the world price, such as New Zealand or Australia. Those countries have more moderate climate conditions than Canada’s and, consequently, much lower production costs.
Another factor is large exporters of dairy products, such as the United States and European Union, are “heavily subsidized,” he notes. The Europeans are spending the same amount of money, $55 billion Euros annually, that they’ve always spent in agriculture. But instead of calling the payments to farms export subsidizes, the Europeans are now referring to them as “decoupled payments,” he says.
“When a small farm in Europe gets $60,000 a year, decoupled or not, it goes into the same account,” Doyle says, noting farmers in Europe can accept lower prices from the market because they get income from their government.
“The United States is in a very similar situation. The Farm Bill, that has just been passed, is very generous to the farmers,” he says. But Canada doesn’t have these programs for dairy or other farmers under supply management.
Michael Bloom, Conference Board vice president industry and business strategy, says quota value across all supply management sectors, dairy, poultry and eggs, is about $30 billion. Of that amount, $23 billion is dairy, while the other $7 billion is for the combination of poultry and eggs.
The Conference Board focused solely on dairy supply management in its report because it wanted to do a careful analysis and “dairy is the biggest piece of the story,” Bloom notes.
Doyle disputes Bloom’s quota value numbers. He notes in this example that if someone has stocks valued at $100 a share and the market is at its peak but the stock drops to $10 a share because everyone is getting out of the market, “I’m not making $100 a share.” Someone can’t take the selling price from the small volume of quota sold annually and apply that number to the entire quota holding in Canada.
He also questions the Conference Board’s interest in the supply management system. “They’re basically promoting free trade and anything that doesn’t fit that mold they suggest should be reformed or changed.”
Doyle says he finds it “extremely difficult to have this supposedly independent body, that technically is really a lobby organization that has adopted a free trade stance,” working to change government policies but they’re not a registered lobbyist like Dairy Farmers of Canada has to be.
In addition, reports such as the Conference Board’s portray supply management as an old dinosaur that hasn’t changed over the years. “I’ve been in this business 38 years and I can tell you supply management today is not what is was 38 years ago, and it’s not likely to be the same in five years from now either,” Doyle notes.
Bloom says part of their analysis is about the market opportunity, and he was reading in a recent Bloomberg article about New Zealand’s dairy exports to China soaring 92 per cent in January. The increase in dairy income in New Zealand this season is projected to be $4.7 billion, which represents 2.6 per cent of their (New Zealand’s) Gross Domestic Product.
“We believe there’s an enormous opportunity for Canadian dairy farmers to go global,” he says.
Asked if countries already participating in export markets, such as New Zealand and Australia, have cornered them, Bloom says “they’ve done a wonderful job of getting the market. The thing is our forecast is that demand will grow so much in the next 15, 20 years for dairy in Asia, in particular, but also in Africa and elsewhere that they (New Zealand) cannot meet the growth in demand. They’re reaching their physical constraints in their economy to support more dairy production.” BF
Comments
In about 49 years of Supply Management, their quota value has ballooned from $0.00 to about $30 Billion in value.
If farmers were earning a "reasonable return", quota would still be at the same value as it was back in 1965 when the government's SM system issued it to farmers for free. Quota is worth more today because the government created monopoly is worth more than just a "reasonable return" for the farmers.
We can calculate that unjust enrichment taken by Supply Management farmers with just some simple assumptions.
Assuming a steady growth each year as this unjust enrichment repeats year after year, and the sum total of that unjust enrichment collects 3% /yr compound interest, that means that Supply Management has accumulated $594 Million per year in unjust enrichment (ie. windfall profits) out of the Canadian consumer's wallets.
When will Supply Management admit, if not return this $594 Million/yr. that is unfairly taxed away from Canadian consumers by gouging commodity pricing charged by Supply Management?
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
Good questions, Glenn. I would love to hear a comprehensive answer. Heavens know, I have asked a number of times.
Our constitution states, that under certain conditions, agricultural licences to trade shall be granted "free and without reward" to qualifying "persons".
Hereinlies the root of our marketing quota system. Rights to trade by Sovereign command. Quota is merely a license with a quantitative value.
By definition, a 'licence granting a right' is a 'tax'. Because the licences are technically a tax, that explains the latter part of the clause... "without reward". Can our government lawfully tax a tax?
But let us not forget that our Provincial government "assessed" a value on marketing rights in the 1960's. In essence, our Provincial government capitalize quota.
It is safe to say that the Provincial government has been the single largest beneficiary of quota valuations.
If you demand that the farmers return the "unjust enrichment" as you call them, it will also be fair to request the government return the billions it took from farmers through quota valuation assessments.
One cannot receive benefits without taking ownership of the obligations.
joann vergeer
Where were these experts back in the export or not days, back when a small group of Farmers risked everything to advance the export program. Governments at both levels stood silently by while quota values were begun to be used for financial security by FCC, but wait, I m wrong, FCC is a government body. Some of these large farms today would jump at the chance to double in size, oh but wait,, they would expect to be paid for that quota wouldn t they. I doubt this will ever be resolved for a long time to come.
Today, quota-bearing Canadian chicken growers have only 1.4% of the OECD chicken export market; a drop in the ocean. If Canada is truly an exporting nation, why don't we do so for our Supply Management ("SM") goods like chicken, eggs, dairy, turkeys, and dairy?
The reason we can successfully compete in all goods except SM goods, is the extremely high gouging prices these monopolists charge Canadians; 200% to 300% higher than world prices.
Under WTO rules, if we have domestic prices set above world prices, then to sell at below domestic prices is a government subsidy, which is not permitted. This is similar to anti-dumping rules of unfair trade practices.
It is easy, with government imposed monopolies, to take advantage of Canadians with price gouging. It is far more difficult to compete on a fair basis in world markets.
Canada's Supply Management players would rather take advantage of Canadians rather than compete in world markets.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
You might have something there . You mention about being competitve . I remember quite vividly that livestock farmers here always said they could compete . Yet they need adhoc money and gov hand outs in order to compete .
Then when you look at the young and beginning farmers who were left out of the OCHHP program , many are yet struggling to make things work while dead people got payments . Don't wave the competition flag to wildly now at the SM farmer to wildly now . Jealousy is what it looks like is driving you . If we are to be an exporting nation why then are we not exporting cars to Japan , China and all over the world ?
We also are seemingly fighting to be the biggest exporter of surplus power at a loss to the tax payer no less !
And where do you think Japan gets the raw material to make cars?
And how do you suppose they can turn around and out compete the NA car makers...you don't suppose it's efficiency do you?
And if we had no imports of automobiles, what kind of a product do you think the NA car makers would produce without the competition from Japan?
We are an export nation and that's the way it is!
I'm not sure if it's the work of the Devil, but most people find "free" government grants, subsidies, and similar inducements to be very tempting, or impossible to resist.
Some refuse to do anything different except for which a government grant is available.
At the start of my prior career, I usually recommended government funding programs to my clients, and benefiting from the induced work that resulted.
Over time, I came to realize the waste and misuse that resulted. I started recommending clients determine what was the right thing to do, justify the business case without government funding, then if approved, mention the grants available, and help the client decide if it was worth applying for funding.
To me, as a recent arrival to agriculture, it seems there is a significant prevalence rate of government grant addiction in most sectors of agriculture.
If this first impression is true:
1. What should be done about it?
2. Who is primarily responsible for taking the first step away from this addiction; the farmers or the government?
3. What is the priority for this addiction issue vs. all the other items on farmer's plates?
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
Don t forget that the dairy industry in Ontario wanted it both ways, they ran an export program for a couple years til it was shut down. Pretty hard to not call that being greedy.
So my wife was sick and l had to do the grocery shopping which l hardly ever do.I got 10lbs of potatoes,2L of 2% milk and 2 of Chocolate milk,18 large eggs,sour cream, banana's,cold meat,bread,chips and a ring of bologna,all came to around $33.00.Then decided to stop at the A&W on way out of town,2 burger combos with roor beer $21.00 !.
Then l read that Hamburger is at a all-time price high...no freaking kidding!!
who is gouging who?
And corn prices are half what they were a few years ago! Yes, who is gouging whom?
Who owns the quota, the "provincial government" or the farmers? I disagree with almost all of your post, but the question begs with the explanation you give. Don't tell me its both. Raube Beuerman
The farmers
If you disagree with me so much, why bother publicly question me?
First, I am going to presume you did not read the Conference Board of Canada report for the purpose of this question.
Its not so much the question of who owns agricultural "quota" as to who "controls" the quota. The control is the catch all point.
Quota is a "licence" in the simplest form.
The dairy board and other supply managed corporations are "Public Trusts"... some with monopoly rights. These corporations control the "rights" associated with the "licences".
A licence granting a 'right' is legally termed a "tax".
Agricultural marketing rights are technically a federal (Crown in the Right of Canada) jurisdiction. Marketing licences are licences to trade.
A simplified definition of license is "a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee." The current licencing system makes our governments responsible for agricultural commodities after the products leave the farmgate. Hence, farmers have a degree of immunity.
If you disagree with me I could point you to a federal CRA researcher that will validate my comments and other comments. I highly encourage you to further investigate the foundation of agricultural quotas.
I would also like to point out that a major national newspaper, the National Post has changed their language since last May in regards to dairy quotas and is now more in line with some of my positions. Even they recognize that to revoke licences there needs to be due process that includes fair financial compensation.
I would also like to remind you that I have never taken a position on the future status of marketing boards. Agricultural licences to trade can be found in our Constitution. It was put there to protect a segment of our society. If that segment chooses to revoke the clause, that is their right. I just have the current privilege of reaping the benefits of those rights.
The public has yet to be adequately informed of our Sovereign food supply laws such as who has the 'right' to domestic food supply and who has the 'privilege' of domestic food supply.
Just remember that when you introduce and apply Anti-Trust laws to the foundation of this country, agriculture, the same will be applied to the other sectors of our society.
joann vergeer
Ultimately, the government controls the quota, but even one must wonder about that since actual farmers of these products sit on the boards. Government did NOT attach value to quota, farmers did. The only people that reap the benefits of owning quota are the ones who profit from it, in other words, less than 15,000 farmers. And in doing so, they trample on the rights of about 35 million Canadians, the right for the freedom to make their own economic decisions. Raube Beuerman
If you did a little research you will find that the Provincial government "assessed" a value on marketing rights. In essence they "capitalized" quota. When the other marketing schemes came into effect, the precedent was already established.
Did the Province have the Constitutional right to receive a "reward" for those licences?
If the Province received a benefit from quota valuations, then they have an obligation too.
Then the federal government came along and a "Valuation Date" for agricultural capital in the early 1970's if you remember. That included values for quota.
The government has been the single largest beneficiary of quota valuations. That means people like you received benefits from quota valuations.
joann vergeer
Is we are speaking of the same thing, the Federal Government changed the Capital Gains tax laws. Everyone was allowed, if they so chose, to crystalize any prior capital gains they had accrued prior to that tax code change, thereby exempting that prior capital gain from the tax code changes.
I believe everyone could have chosen to do no valuation, or to pick a value of $0.00 or to do any reasonable amount up to and including "fair market value".
This may be similar to arriving in a casino with $1.00 and through some beginner's luck, get a pile of casino chips worth a million $, but choosing to continue playing, and their luck leaving them, and eventually going home with no winnings and lost the $1.00 that they entered the casino with. Were they really a millionaire at some point in that process?
Some farmers may have felt that quota was obtained from the government for free, and even though they could sell it for more as of Valuation Day, that was a temporary aberration and could not be depended upon. Others may have been more aggressive in their tax avoidance (or tax evasion) and voluntarily chose significantly higher values.
Like all adults, they should receive or suffer the natural consequences of their prior decisions.
As far as I know, no government forced a specific Valuation Day value for quota. If you have facts to the contrary, please provide them.
Unfortunately, FCC and other financial institutions allowed quota to be used as collateral for loans; thereby helping cause the farmers become indentured debt slaves; putting all taxpayers at risk if these loans default.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
Over the past few years I have read Mrs. Vergeer's comments about quota and I am always left thinking what is this lady talking about. The Government has never played any role in giving quota any value, you rant on about the Government giving quota a value then show us all some links to this nonsense you keep talking about it's insane and beyond bizarre to listen to this foolishness.....
Sean McGivern
PFO
She knows what she is talking about because she has taken the time to research and educate herself . She has spent more hours than most lawyers spend on long drawn out court cases researching and finding where things are hidden .
I would suggest that short little you needs to apologize to her and also learn to respect your elders . If Joann so wanted she could eat you up and spit you out with out even having to think about it . She has tried to help and educate many know it all's but will only take the time to help those who are respectful and worthy . Most who are not open minded enough to listen are much like you are .
When Ms Vergeer's name appears at the end of a posting I take notice because I know I will learn something. When other posters especially PFO leader and ex beef farmer now accountant (looking at others finances) guy and wannabee chicken farmer post ...i know they are going to be bullies and anti everything.
G.Kimble
You say that Wannabee chicken farmers are bullies and anti everything. Somebody who is truly against everything can usually be described as a nihilist, or possibly an anarchist.
Is that what you really meant to say?
Bully is defined as, "use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants."
Do you seriously believe that small flock poultry farmers have superior strength or influence, as compared to CFO and CFC?
Is so, please explain fully. I eagerly wait to learn of power and influence that has escaped my attention.
Small Flockers Mission, Vision, and Principles (as published on our Blog, see http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/p/sfpfcs-principles.html ) clearly state that we are for many things. Therefore I fail to see how we could be possibly described as nihilists, anarchists, or against everything.
It is a standard psychological and manipulative ploy to project ones faults upon others. Perhaps that is where we get the expression, "The pot calling the kettle black" (ie. accuse others of your own faults so as to deflect criticism away from yourself).
Was that your intention?
I search for comments bearing your name of this website, and find that you have been a regular contributor, and a staunch supporter of SM.
Describing something accurately adds to the discussion. Inaccurate descriptions tend to cloud issues, and cause polarization.
I believe we need to listen, understand all points of view, determine what is in the best interest and greater good for all, and come together on helping achieve the greater good.
Making inaccurate statements dissolves into name calling, which works against this worthwhile goal.
If you would like to clarify or withdraw your previous statement, that would appreciated, and a clear sign of good character and maturity.
If not, I am comfortable with us agreeing to disagree.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
Your total ignorance and lack of respect towards people in the past has totally undermined any credibility pfo ever had. It is time for pfo to find a new spokesperson with some leadership qualities and less sandbox mentality. Thank you Joann for your hard work and mature comments. Your post are a pleasure to read. Keep up the great work,
Its all total rubbish and non sense. This whole foolish mentality that were all in it together big group hug bs, is so absurd at best. There sure aren't to many Quota holder that i have ever met that think small farmers should have any rights at all, they think its a privilege for small farmers or non quota holders to be able to produce 300 chickens when most of the rest of the country allows their farmers to produce 1000 - 4000 birds annually and area that don't have near the population that Ontario has to support the market and Ontario is the only providence that has an actually task force of inspector on duty 52 weeks of the year trying to crush small farmers. SM farmers are the sole reason for quota having a value there is absolutely no reason those boards couldn't have passed a by law or policy to cap the number of units one producer can own per farm and cap the value at zero.
Sean McGivern
PFO
When I read a post with Ms. Vergeer's name, I think ancient history...and while ancient history is worth learning from it is not always relative today. We have governments that are quite capable of manipulating most things any way they wish...by hiring lawyers etc. with our money to get whatever they want.
Learning from the past is worthwhile, living in the past uses up too much energy.
Using up too much energy is a polite way of saying some of us are afraid of a little hard work.
I honestly don't think Mr.Black and Mr.McGivern know what they want or don't want.They don't want to buy Quota but they do want to take advantage of the pricing that Supply Management has brought.They seem to think that having 2000 chickens is the answer but without SM and having to compete against the likes of Brazil and the US on a world market that 2000 bird is pittance.They would have to understand the need to get much bigger or exit the industry.
You feel that PFO and Small Flockers are unsure or confused about what we want. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to clarify our position to you and all others.
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada ("SFPFC") was formed on Feb. 28, 2013. On that same day, we posted our Mission, Vision, and Principles. Since then, there have been 4 revisions to the Principles, as we clarified and expanded them.
Most people feel they are very straight forward and specific about how we feel on all the important issues. If you would take a moment to read them, we welcome any feedback, pro or con, that you may have (see http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2013/02/principles-for-small-fl... ).
We have 3 main issues for which we seek relief from CFO, CFC, and OMAF, as follows:
1) Raise quota-exempt limit from 300 to 2,000 birds per year. This puts small flockers in Ontario closer to the rest of the provinces. This will also enable small flockers to be economically viable, and enable us to make a significant contribution towards safe, nutritious, affordable food for our local communities.
2) OMAF to modify the Meat Regulations so that small flockers can self-slaughter and farm gate sell poultry, provided they provide full disclosure to their prospective customers. This again enhances local food, especially in remote areas that are under-serviced by licensed abattoirs.
3) SM systems changes so that the Canadian consumer are no longer price gouged or abused by the SM system, and the SM system is operated first and foremost for the benefit of the public, not the privileged few. Today, SM is run exactly opposite of what should be occurring (first priority are the SM chosen few, with the public stuck with the bill and the crumbs under the table).
Hopefully, that is sufficiently clear. For the details and the reasons justifying these changes, please see SFPFC's Blog, and/or our Notice of Appeal to the OMAF Tribunal.
We agree with you that clarity and specific pleadings of relief are important.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
Since you didn't sign your post i am not sure who i am addressing my comments to. Members of the PFO firmly believe that farmers can make a living without supply management, Just like beef, pork, sheep, rabbit, duck, grain and vegetable farmers are doing. In October the PFO will be hosting 2 American farmers who are farming successful without subsidies, running multi generational farms and are focused on pasture based agriculture, these two gentlemen Greg Judy and Joel Salatin, will share their success stories of how they can compete and thrive with out supply management and government handouts. I hope that those who really do have an open mind will coming to this 2 day event and learn first hand that you can farm and make a profit without the government propping you up, The rest of Agriculture stands on its own 2 feet so cam SM farmers...
Sean McGivern
PFO
I just read were Canada imports, tariff-free, over 6% of the market for dairy products.The US gives up 2.75 access to their markets..you have to wonder who has the better Supply Management system!
The US will always protect their farmers from any form of competition, whether its Milk, chicken,sheep etc..but l'm sure Mr.Judy and Mr. Salatin will tell you that.
You don't require price protection when the market place wants your product, that would be like Discount grocers like No Frills asking for protection form premium grocers like Zehr's lol, Supply managed farmers shouldn't be worried small farmers selling Chicken at double or 3 times the price they are getting. Its greed that has SM farmers wanting every single chicken under their control nothing else.
There is a huge market in Ontario, we have a massive population in comparison to the number of farmers we have there is plenty of room for everyone.
Its just sad that so many farmers can't see that their monopoly is actually slowly coming to an end. Eventually trade deals will slowly eat away at SM, always allow for more imports to the point where SM just will no longer be viable to continue to operate under.
Sean McGivern
PFO
Are No Frills and Zehrs not owned by the same parent company ?
When it comes to the price of this new non supply managed chicken why are you thinking it should be double or triple the price of SM chicken ? Should it not be cheaper since the SM chicken farmers are gouging the consumer ? Should you not be proving that it can be produced cheaper ? Is SM not a form of price protection , so why be 2 or 3 times the price ? You should be at the cheaper USA price should you not ?
sounds like you want to gouge your canadian consumers by charging 2-3 times more for chicken. i thought all the mantra from you sm bashers was to lower the price to the consumer. the truth always comes out.
In http://betterfarming.com/comment/12099#comment-12099 you suggest the possibility of hidden motives by small flock poultry farmers wanting to gouge consumers; similar to SM and their factory farmed foul at 300% of world prices for chicken.
The Vision of SFPFC states:
"Our Vision is for small flock poultry farmers to be respected, valuable, and effective producers of safe, nutritious, and affordable poultry meat, eggs, and related products for their local communities; with minimal regulatory restrictions."
Many people have significant complaints against the morals, principles, and poor quality of the foul chickens produced by SM (eg. too rapid a rate of growth, Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio dysfunction, congested housing, lack of sun/wind/rain/grass, excessive use of antibiotics, unbalanced & un-natural feed, disease & biosecurity wells, use of perverse medications such as psychotropic drugs, pain killers, caffeine, antihistamines, arsenic, etc.).
These same people (and many others) like the idea of small flock, or hand raised, or pasture raised chicken without all the nonsense of SM profiteers.
There is a rapidly growing group of consumers who want what small flockers have to offer. With many more potential customers who greatly exceed the ability of small flockers to supply, how should small flockers respond to be fair to all?
Small flockers understand that supply and demand is a powerful force. Some small flockers have chosen to use supply and demand as the solution; raising prices until supply matches demand.
Remember, small flockers have higher input costs that SM factory farmed foul. Small flockers currently have about 0.5% of Ontario's chicken market. As small flockers become a greater part of the overall market, they will hopefully get better pricing for chicken feed. For example, I currently have to pay $18 per 25 kg bag of chicken feed, equivalent to $720/tonne, which is 85% more than what SM chicken farmers pay (about $388/tonne or less).
After supply-demand pricing covers these higher input costs, there may be more profits for small flockers than compared to SM, or "reasonable returns". What then, is to be done for those who can't afford to pay these high prices for these small flock chickens that are in great demand?
Some small flockers have chosen to use the extra profits derived by the supply-demand pricing to donate a percentage to their local food bank. The more chicken small flockers sell, and the high the supply-demand equilibrium price, the more that is available for donation.
When (not if) SM is modified so that small flockers can break free of its 300 birds/yr shackles, small flockers will have greater ability to supply to this specialty market, and so prices of small flock chicken will naturally come done.
Glenn Black
if you would notice I replied to pfo comment let pfo respond to their own two sided views. unless pfo and small flockers are joining together.
I believe you mentioned both PFO and "small flockers" in your posting.
I mentioned that at the beginning of my posting so that it was clear which posting I was replying to, as it is not always clear in BF's posting system.
After that, I clarified that I was speaking solely on behalf of SFPFC.
I agree that PFO speaks for itself.
While there is some shared common ground between PFO and SFPFC, they are two separate organizations.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
can't a farmer use SM quota to sell more than 300 birds and raise them exactly the same you are suggesting??
I don't know for sure, but I have heard that there are some quota-based farmers who also raise some chickens in a more traditional, sane manner.
Does CFO have bio-security requirements, audits, and By-laws that prevent these chickens from feeling grass under their feet, or eat bugs they find in a grass pasture? Do these farmers still feed these chickens antibiotics, drugs and chemicals so as to maximize their profits?
The SM profits and lifestyle are highly addictive. Do they have the personal strength to voluntarily leave this fast and loose lifestyle behind? Most drug and alcohol addicts must hit bottom before they can successfully decide to rebuild their lives and leave the past behind. Will SM farmers have to do likewise?
As the public abandons SM factory chicken more and more, SM will naturally abandon (or pretend to abandon) their prior dysfunctional methods.
The problem is that SM farmers have over a Billion dollars invested in their factory farmed foul chicken systems, that would take another 20 to 50 years to fully depreciate and wear out.
Therefore, I assume that SM will continue to resist, delay, distract, and whatever else they need to do to slow or stop the return to chicken farm sanity; ensuring that they don't get stuck with the bill for scrapping or writing off their prior investments.
That being said, any quota-bearing chicken farmer who wishes to disavow their previous wrongs, and come to adopt and apply small flocker philosophies and methods, they are all welcome with open arms; the sooner the better.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
I am not a sm farmer but I don't appreciate you comparing sm farmers to addicts, many of them are my neighbors, not once would I compare them to addicts. feel free to buy quota if you want to be in the chicken business. as far as I can see you can't afford to buy quota so you want to fight the system to get what you want. you have lost credibility with me when you start to put my neighbors down.
Sane has 3 meanings (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sane )
1. free from mental derangement; having a sound, healthy mind: a sane person.
2. having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense: sane advice.
3. sound; healthy.
Origin: 1620–30; < Latin sānus healthy
Has Canada's SM system, chicken or otherwise, consistently shown reason, sound judgement, and good sense? I, and many others say NO!.
I have provided a longer explanation and justification for the use of this word "sane", but that response has been rejected by BF, or is under extended review before allowing it to post.
All of these comments about the questionable actions of factory farmed foul chicken are supported and justified by reams of objective data, analysis, and information published on SFPFC's Blog.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
Sane has 3 meanings (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sane )
1. free from mental derangement; having a sound, healthy mind: a sane person.
2. having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense: sane advice.
3. sound; healthy.
Origin: 1620–30; < Latin sānus healthy
Has Canada's SM system, chicken or otherwise, consistently shown reason, sound judgement, and good sense? I, and many others say NO!.
I have provided a longer explanation and justification for the use of this word "sane", but that response has been rejected by BF, or is under extended review before allowing it to post.
All of these comments about the questionable actions of factory farmed foul chicken are supported and justified by reams of objective data, analysis, and information published on SFPFC's Blog.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
I find it offensive when you Mr. Beck slip in words like "sane" and claim, that modern chicken farming is evil. It's one thing to have different views but quite another to use abuse.
Show us a budget for how you are going to feed our population in a wholesome, efficient manner and assure a fair return for farmers and good value as well as safe food for Canadian consumers.
It's time to show us some real numbers.
Any form of agriculture that does not value the chicke-ness of the chicken or the pig-ness of the pig or the cow-ness of the cow is not humane. It is sinful to think that this day in age that we have not progressed further in the humane practiced used to rear livestock. If you look at a chicken and all that you see is dollar bills then you will treat that chicken like dollar bills, but you if you look at that chicken and you see a living creature and a gift from our maker then you will treat it as such. This whole notion that if we don't factory farm then we cant feed every one is a foolish notion and one that should come from only those ignorant about farming, every farmer deep down knows that we are a wash in food there is no shortage of food and if called on farmers and suburbanites to produce more food we could easily do that just like people were called on to do so during the 2nd world war. To start this trend we would need to end supply management, this world bring land values back in line, 2ndly we would need to improve the curriculum to teach about sustainable renewable agriculture and 3rdly we would need progressive government support in the way of policy not in the way of subsidies.
Sean McGivern
PFO
I understand that you (and I assume most SM chicken farmers) are shocked and offended by my comments that question the sanity of Canada's current SM system for raising commercial chicken.
I can easily understand why this upsets you.
I have previously said, and stand by that today, that I trust and assume that there are many good people in the SM system who have been slowly but surely turned, distracted, and enticed by the dysfunctional SM system, and these people are now trapped within this SM system.
I also assume that many or most SM people are nervous or uncomfortable, or disagree with one or more aspects of what SM encourages or condones them to do, but face huge consequences (financial, social, familial, and other) if they question or stop.
As an example, do you call it sane to purposefully feed arsenic, a known acute poison as well as a potent carcinogen, to broiler/roaster chickens for up to 60 years so as to gain 4.1% extra profit for the farmer?
In Canada, this practice was finally stopped in August 2012 when Health Canada banned it.
Did 100% of the SM farmers stop on or before this Aug. 2012 arsenic deadline? Has one or more Canadian SM chicken farmer continued, by buying their arsenic on the black market? Nobody knows for sure, and nobody wants to ask the question except me, nor conduct an audit to confirm. Both CFO and Health Canada refuse to discuss this issue. I wonder why.
Today, there are thousands of acres of rich cropland that have been contaminated so badly by chicken manure laced with arsenic, the crops grown there are now unfit for human consumption due to arsenic contamination. Arsenic is leaching into streams and lakes from where arsenic laced chicken manure was landfilled or spread; thereby contaminating water wells and municipal drinking water.
Do you call this mere folly, or has it reached the level of mass industrial insanity to spread tons of arsenic throughout the food chain for the purpose of 4.1% added profit?
While this is one of the hardest to understand and justify, there are many more similar issues with SM's factory farmed foul that continue to this day.
You question the use of "evil" to describe "modern" chicken farming. So do I. What I have previously saaid, and repeat here, is:
"As I have said before, I do not see SM farmers as necessarily evil.
I think SM farmers have been tempted, consumed and co-opted by a dysfunctional system called SM. Likely most of us would have suffered the same or similar fate if the roles had been reversed."
In other words, SM farmers have fallen into a trap, and need help to get out. I want to help in that struggle. I hope everybody else does too. However, it won't be easy, because they are buried past the axles in the SM mud.
What about addiction, you ask. CBC Radio just did a program last week on Money Addiction (see http://www.cbc.ca/player/AudioMobile/The%2BCurrent/ID/2441566211/ ). We see the effect of that money addiction from 1980 until the collapse of the resulting financial house of cards on a world-wide basis in 2007. The difficult consequences continue on to this day, and beyond.
I asked the question, could SM farmers be addicted to the SM system that makes them the highest paid farmers in Canada (median annual income of $90,250 per year for all chicken farmers, small flockers and SM combined, so SM quota farmers are even higher than that). Chicken farming provides 22.3% higher farm income than the average income for all other Canadian farmers.
Details on all of the above, with objective facts and supporting documents, are fully described on SFPFC's Blog.
How will we ever move forward if SM chicken farmers are addicted, and resist the necessary improvements? I think that is a valid question.
If SM chicken farmers are addicted to their historically high profits, then they need our help and compassion so they can move forward.
No Canadian can move forward on these important issues of safe, nutritious, affordable chicken until we help and ensure all SM chicken farmers can move forward too.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
I don't keep track of every livestock prices but read last summer were Lamb prices were way down.I asked my sheep producer neighbour about the reasons and he said a glut on the world market.So is that why does the grocery store always have Lamb chops from New Zealand on sale ? Could Chicken not turn into the "new" Lamb?
Totally up to you and your group to do what you want .
I will question why you are bringing non SM organic beef farmers to speak and show how SM should and could survive in a place where SM is the norm for some other forms of livestock ? You are using an apples and grapefruit comparison .
Maybe you could bring in some one raising grass feed ducks too .
Mr Salatin, raises 20,000 broilers a year all on pasture< i think he has a lot share with Canadian farmers on how you can be in the broiler business, make a living and not need supply management to do so.
Sean McGivern
PFO
I do have an open enough mind to suggest, if you don't want the program benefits then don't sign up, just as your American examples have done. It is that simple! Meanwhile, back at the U.S Farm Bill, Uncle Sam is continuing to spend buckets of dollars on all sorts of incentives such as grain revenue insurance and tax credits. Also please remember most of those programs and incentive dollars are targeted towards grains production to kick start the ag economy from the ground up. Ditto for Europe.
History fits in 2 catagories . Recent and Ancient . Ancient history would be more so classified as looking to the bible . Recent history would be since Canada was founded . All you have to do is ask an older person what they think old is .
The past can be 1 or 2 seconds ago . I don't know any one who actually lives in the past because they would be dead .
When it comes to the history that Joann speaks of it is very important to know the how and why of things before change can happen .
How many on here understand land patents ?
YOU people are all out to lunch ,you do not even know what you are talking about . I ran a export milk contract business for 2 years ,Mr. Doyle is full of shit ,they stopped the milk export program because they could not control it. Even the Feds supported one ,until they realized that if had of continued there would be no milk left in Canada ! You people should read all the challenges in court against the D.F.O and Province ,they put hard working people out of business to keep CONTROL ! Bill Denby
In response to the ever-increasing tsunami of evidence that supply management is unsustainable, about the best supply management supporters can do is continue to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by regularly sniggering at the retail milk price errors Martha Hall-Findlay made in her now several-year old report about supply management.
However, supply management supporters can not take issue with one of Hall-Findlay's other findings which is that there are only about 8 federal ridings where supply management is likely to be an election issue at all, and even in those ridings, the number of people (like hog farmers) who wanted to get rid of supply management, could out-number those who want it saved.
It's not so much court challenges as it is public relations elitism and stonewalling the inevitable leveling of incomes in the farm community.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I think we should thank SM for the increased value of farm land! Sell all your equipment and rent your land out for big bucks. We can just sit on the porch and wait for the bubble to burst.
I think you must have been out to lunch, was it not the USA government that quit the import of milk into there because they could not export into this country. If I,m wrong here is my 2 cents or now I guess nickel . Why would the farmers ship to the States for less money than they are making here the export was only the icing on the cake.
DFO started the export business and then individuals jumped in with their own ideas on exporting. The WTO ruled in favour of the USA and Europe when they filed a complaint against the exports. DFO was guilty of Dumping, in trade terms. No one ever tried to establish a market other than in the USA. It was a poorly thought out plan by DFO and everyone involved in it. There never was any objection to the concept from the Federal Government at any time. DFO moved to shut it down because the WTO had only ruled against quota holders exporting, no decision was ever made re the non-quota holders. Ottawa would not put a program in place for non-quota producers, leaving it up to the province to initiate it. The recent report from the conference board of Canada seems to speak in favour of winding down the quota system in favour of one allowing for exports and growth in the industry. Time will tell if this will be successful or not. The larger producers will be licking their lips waiting for the chance to grow. Should be an interesting few years ahead.
The quotas going boys get ready, The talk from DFO is funny because they will be out of work.
I heard the same thing back when over 40,000 Supply Management farmers and supporters marched on Paraliment hill,l believe that was over 20 years ago.
So don't hold your breath about anyone in DFO being out of work shortly.
20 years ago the 40,000 were not all SM farmers! They were there for various commodity reasons.
The questions remains, how many SM farmers can DFO get on parliament hill now?
On our bus to Ottawa back then SM supporters outnumbered actual farmers almost 10-1,we knew everyone and we did a count.
I don't see a lot changing in those 20 years as far as support goes.Everyone from the farm equipment, feed people to the financial institutions would want to show their support,in fact in light of some of the downward turns in other Ag-sectors...even more so now!
If and when supply management ends, tax payers will not be interested in compensating quota holders for losses. Forget the artificial quota value set on an opaque exchange, book value and loss of future income are the only arguments that will allow an action for damages; unrealized losses cannot be considered by a court or tribunal.
Post new comment