Tribunal upholds limit on chicken production without quota

© AgMedia Inc.

Description (Tag): 


The results are finally in Mr Black
So do many of the small flock people carry on (under the radar) and raise more than 300 chickens anyway?
The CFO has not been checking on the numbers for the last few years anyway.
They are short staffed.

You suggest that Small Flockers should do as they please, because there is minimal enforcement in the recent history.

Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail in August 1963 ( see ):

"A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."


“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”

Small Flockers believe that the laws imposed against Small Flockers by Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") are unjust laws.

We are currently working to have these unjust laws recognized for what they are; a scheme of the millionaire chicken farmers to take unfair advantage of the consumer, and a stripping away of the civil rights of small flock poultry farmers.

If we are unable to get those oppressive and tyrannical laws of CFO changed, or declared unconstitutional and quashed, then the day will soon arrive when we will stand up and publicly declare our opposition to these unjust laws, and as Dr. King has guided us and all other oppressed people, to openly and publicly refuse to obey them.

When that day arrives, CFO will likely take action against the open defiance of Small Flockers. I am prepared, and I assume other Small Flockers are equally prepared, to take the unjust punishment that flows from our moral duty of opposing an unjust law.

As Dr. King willing suffered in the Birmingham Jail for his public defiance of an unjust law. So will I.

I will not skulk in the shadows, nor flout the law, whether just or unjust.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Sounds like the appeal to raise more chickens without quota was just some more "whine time" about CFO and Supply Management.

This is nothing to do with "the best interests of Ontario", this is just someone wanting a bigger slice of someone else's pie,without paying for it.

Many allotments of more and extra quota have been given to SM producers . Some sold their free quota and bought more land . Your statement speaks in spades of just why so many hate SM and can't wait to see it go . I until I read your completely wrong comment would have supported SM with some changes . You just killed that for me .

When CFO did their pilot program in 2008 it was based on 8,000 participants being granted the 300 bird limit without Quota.Those participants averaged only 61 birds over the course of the year, that's a far cry from the 2000 birds that Mr.Black thinks should be warranted now and it goes far past growing birds for himself,relatives and neighbours!

Of course there are those that dislike Supply Management,because they either can't afford to buy into it or they fundamentally don't believe they should have to! The only thing they do believe in is the Price stability that SM has brought to the marketing of chicken in this country but without SM that would be long gone,they just fail to understand that!.. They would be just another Ag-sector lining up for more Government support money just before an election like so many others.

Talk to some older guys, there was a reason why it was so hard to make a living as a chicken farmer before SM.

That it may have been hard to make a living as a chicken farmer before supply management, is not a good enough reason to allow chicken farmers to be financial bullies in the farm community now.

In addition, that it may have been hard to make a living as a chicken farmer before supply management, is not a good enough reason to allow chicken farmers to gouge consumers to the point where increasing numbers of them are going to the US to buy poultry products.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Thank-you for the history on the pilot program and the 300 bird limit.

Today, the average small flock farmer in Ontario grows 54.5 birds per year; very similar to your 2007 statistics.

Assuming 2 kg birds and 37 kg/person/yr consumed (Canadian average), that 300 birds per year limit will feed 5.5 people per year for their chicken needs.

My remote village in Northern Ontario has about 100 households. What are the other 94 households supposed to do for their chicken supply?

With a 2,000 bird/yr limit, that will feed about 42% of the households in my village; which seems suitable. Not everybody wants to buy farm fresh chicken, some prefer the grocery store version shipped 1,000 km at great expense.

In 2013, there were 196 Million chickens grown in Ontario by the CFO chicken factories. If every small flocker (15,129 in 2013) grew 2,000 chickens per year (highly unlikely), that extreme scenario would cause 15.4% market share for small flockers, with 84% market share for CFO and the chicken factory boys.

With a 13:1 ratio in numbers where small flockers have no say in the making of the rules, but the minority (ie. mega factory chicken farms) make all the rules, "Chicken Apartheid" seems appropriate to describe this non-democratic system.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

If CFO was running their government created monopoly so that the best interest of the Ontario people was put first and foremost, then I would agree that nobody gets to "cut into line", nor gets a free handout, nor gets preference.

However, that is not the case.

CFO has no allegiance to Ontario, nor Canada. They run their organization as a private club for their wealthy members. It isn't by accident that chicken and egg farmers are the richest and best paid farmers in Canada; earning 21.1% more than the average farmer's income. They take as they please. Everybody in Ontario gets sent the bill for their high life and excesses.

Why and how do they justify these facts?

They don't.

That's just they way it is, and is going to be forever, as far as CFO and its cronies are concerned.

I beg to differ.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

"OFPMA site says "change must come from the ground up!" therefore accountability must flow from the top down!

The approach might have been or still might be to call for an audit. The Government operates as a corporation under and as a public trust (since it is accountable for public in trust moneys) This is not a financial audit but rather an operational audit to see if the objectives are being met or can be met better with change. Call it a review if you don't like audit. Either way when has it ever been done in a change from the ground up transparent fashion?

Of course this audit should not be "limited to" just these parameters should other varmint, political or otherwise, be found in the chicken coop as has been found in other files of late.

You suggest an audit or review of Supply Management.

OK, good idea.

Who do you suggest I see about this?

Where do I start?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

No where in the posting did the poster say there should be a review of SM . He simply said there should be a review of OFPMA . Why can't you anti guys read or understand ? OFPMA is responsible for much more than just SM .

You complain that I assumed and confused the intention of the posting, you assuming it calls for a review of OMAF vs. my assumption that the review would be of the Chicken SM system.

The posting expressly said "chicken" within it. The thread is about the Tribunal Appeal for SM Chicken in Ontario.

While the posting doesn't expressly state the scope of the review, it seems reasonable that the author could have meant either assumption.

I agree that there is room for doubt as to the author's true intention. Hopefully, the author will clarify exactly what they meant.

Either way, I believe there is room for a review of both SM chicken and OMAF, for the chicken SM system likely would not have wandered so far from the ideal path if OMAF had been truly effective during that period of time.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Personally i think the quota should be by permit based on acreage. There is no possible way, enviromentally speaking that a small hobbist who raises their 300 birds over an entire summer in small batches can raise 2000 birds without polluting their property and water supply and probably the neighbours as well. Ontario has way to many hobby farmers on their small properties for there to be a blanket increase.

You question the environmental damage and sustainability of the chicken manure produced by small flock poultry farmers.

Principle #6 of Small Flockers states:

6. Canada as a whole, and each local region within Canada, must continuously work towards sustainable and self-sufficient food production and distribution.

Sustainability means environmentally responsible, and much more.

Every chicken farmer will have 1 or more constraints that limit their operations. Currently, the majority of small flockers grow 66 or fewer birds per year; obviously they feel constrained by something other than the 300 bird limit. For some, the controlling constraint may be the use of the chicken manure produced.

Nobody should operate in a non-sustainable manner; neither small flockers nor mega chicken factories.

What of mega chicken factories and their chicken manure? Do they have a policy of environmental sustainability? Nutrient Management?

A vast majority of mega factory chicken farmers buy their chicken feed, rather than grow & manufacture their own feed. This limits the potential use of their chicken manure.

Chicken manure pollution is a big issue, especially for mega chicken factories.

For example, one of the best documented cases is Delmarva Peninsula in USA (on Chesapeake Bay), which grows about 7% of US chicken (ie. 600 Million chickens per year), the highest chicken density in the USA. Delmarva Peninsula chicken farms produce 1.6 Billion kg. of chicken litter (manure & bedding materials) per year. 94% of the Nitrogen pollution in Delmarva streams, lakes, and Chesapeake Bay is directly or indirectly caused or contributed to by chicken manure. Since it is far too much manure for local farmers to re-use on their fields for crop production, and it is more expensive to truck it away, much of the chicken manure is dumped into local landfill sites, thereby polluting ground water, water wells, streams, lakes, etc. For more info, see

The public knows about Delmarva because it has slowly become public knowledge due to the tireless work of US environmentalists.

How many similar sins are hidden by the top secret operations of Ontario's chicken mega factories, supposedly supervised by Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO"), OMAF, and MOE?

Nobody knows, except those who will not speak.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Ok so the average small hobby farmer raises 50 to 70 birds a year. If this is the case why is 300 not enough? If the majority arent raising that many to begin with. Not saying an increase wouldnt be nice but 2000 is alot of chickens if most only raise 50 to 70 birds. There becomes a line between actual farming and factory. A family on a small acerage would struggle to raise 2000 birds without automatic waterers and feeders. Which kinda defeats the purpose of raising them small scale. It becomes labor intensive and no longer economical. On top of that if they were expected to grow and process all their own feed, they would no longer be a small farmer. Supply management has its place in the world, but it appears that the people within the SM system dont want to share. Good luck with your struggle, hopefully something good comes from all the time and effort.

You ask for the justification of a 2,000 bird per year exemption for small flockers when the average small flocker raises just 54 birds per year with a 300 bird limit.

With 54 birds per year for the average small flocker, that is using just 18% of the 300 bird/yr exemption. Why then do we ask for a 2,000 bird per year exemption?

A small flocker who raises 54 birds per year, assuming 2 kg. per bird and 37 kg/person/yr of chicken consumed (Canadian averages), is feeding just 2.9 people. In other words, the typical small flocker is feeding their own on-farm family.

As I understand it, there are 3 issues that restrict small flock chicken farmers: 1) Profitability; 2) Transport to/from Abattoir; and 3) Advertising.

CFO has repeatedly said that the 300 bird limit was set with no thought of it being sufficient to be able to raise chickens in a commercially profitable manner. I tried raising safe, nutritious, locally grown, and affordable chicken, and know from personal experience, it can't be done under the current regulations. That is what launched my investigations, and eventually the appeal to the Tribunal.

By setting the 300 quota limit, which is far below the break-even point, CFO guarantees a virtual monopoly for themselves within Ontario.

Transport to/from Abattoir:
Not all abattoirs process chickens. There was a huge collapse of local abattoirs in 2005 when OMAF's new Meat Regulations came into effect, and on-farm slaughter was banned. For me, I have a 300 km journey to the nearest abattoir that will do custom processing, then have to hire a refrigerated truck to bring the meat back to my farm. This too, is a significant price and logistical barrier designed to drive Small Flockers into extinction. I have asked OMAF for the scientific data and risk assessment to justify these oppressive regulations, but they have none, or refuse to supply it. It appears that CFO and its lobbyists have achieved regulatory capture of OMAF, further strengthening their death grip on Small Flockers throats, and CFO's chicken monopoly in Ontario.

Small Flockers are banned from all advertising. They can only rely upon secret or private communications, and word of mouth. Most Canadians believe in and enjoy Freedom of Speech, but this is denied to Small Flockers by the millionaire monopolists of CFO.

Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada believe in full disclosure and truth in advertising. On what legal basis is there a total banning of advertising by small flockers?

The CFO system has been well-designed by CFO to make small flock chicken farming an impossibility. In spite of this, the number of Small Flockers continue to grow as we wait for the end of tyranny and oppression by the CFO minority upon the Small Flock majority.

If the exemption limit is moved from 300 to 2,000 birds per year, and the other barriers are reviewed, justified or relaxed, then the high fixed costs of small flock farming can be spread over a larger base, making it profitable and feasible.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Of course going from 300 to 2,000 would be more profitable,every one of those 15,000 small flock people would be getting well over a million dollars in free chicken quota.

By your own stats,how could the Board rule any different when the average small flock has went down from 61 to 54 in the last 5-6 years.

Obviously not everyone would take advantage of the 2,000 bird limit if it had been granted but then there are those such as yourself who would jump at the opportunity of Million+ free chicken a big slice of free pie!

That is the whole point!!
If these 15000 small flock people were maxing their 300 limit with proper management and marketing then they might have a "case for increase....say to 500 birds"
At this point they are Hobbyists and Wannabes

Stan Holmes

You suggest Small Flockers should do proper management and marketing before asking for an increase.

Under current regulations by CFO, marketing by Small Flockers is illegal.

In the Dec. 2013 Supreme Court of Canada case, Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] 3 SCR 1101, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII), <> even prostitutes are allowed free speech for the purpose of prostitution.

But no, no free speech for Small Flockers. CFO sees Small Flockers as a greater threat to society than prostitution on city streets.

Under current CFO regulations, every chicken that Small Flockers would sell would be at a loss. If a Small Flocker raised 300 birds per year, they would maximize their losses. Sell more than 300, and you'd be in illegal territory, subject to huge fines.

Who in their right mind would maximize there losses, for now and forever more?

If we can't market, we can't build a business, and at 300 bird/yr, we can't break even, then why would somebody try to raise more than just for themselves?

It's a non-starter under current regulations, just the way the millionaire monopolists want it, so that CFO can have 100% market share for themselves.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Could you give us a breakdown of your cost of production for your small flock Mr. Black? Some items I would be interested in include:
Chick cost
Feed/KG and conversion rate

I am working on the appeal and the presentation of these data therein. They will be published then.

I have previously posted on SFPFC's Blog about the high cost of feed for Small Flockers, $18 per 25 kg bag (ie. $720/tonne), which is 85.4% more than the millionaire chicken factory boys (see ). That equates to an 11.23% premium price for farm gate live prices.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I encourage other Small Flockers to send me their COP data in confidence so that I may include their COP data in the appeal as well, thereby showing that it isn't just me.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

This discussion is happening here. It should be a simple matter for you to show us your numbers. This has nothing to do with any appeal you are working on. Did you keep records? If so why the reluctance? I think this would be called transparency.

It seems that Mr McGivern is conspicuous by his absence with regard to tis Small Flock issue .
Wasn't he the feller that was going to get the CFO down . Be a martyr for the Small farmers? Why aren't Mr Black and Mr McGivern working together on this issue?
Stan H.

When quota was first created, it was given out free. The value of that gift has steadily increased, so that today it's worth more than a million dollars on the open market.

On a regular basis since then, additional free quota was given out to the millionaire factory chicken quota boys.

The Small Flock exemption regulation was introduced in Oct. 2007. Based on statistics from CFO's annual report (2007 vs 2013), between 2007 and 2013 the millionaire factory farmers have enjoyed the additional benefits of:

39 % increase in Farm Gate Value $ produced
34% increase in Farm Gate live prices, $/kg
8% increase in free quota units given to them
7% increase in CFO's chicken allocation from Chicken Farmers of Canada
3% increase in kg of eviscerated chicken produced

What have Small Flockers received during the same time period? Nothing other than tyranny, abuse, and oppression from CFO.

If all the above was in the best interest of the Ontario consumers, it might be able to be justified.

However, there are long lists of facts that show that Ontario consumers are being screwed by CFO as bad or worse than the Small Flockers. See SFPFC's Blog for the details

What right does CFO have to screw 12.9 million people in Ontario so they can maximize the benefit for their 1,400 millionaire members?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I would like to know how much less you charge than the people you say are screwing consumers.

Are you going to answer the question? How much less?

he doesn't charge less that is the whole hyprocrital thing about all this. the consumer saves no money. he wants to raise chickens without buying quota. just buy quota and get busy raising chickens for all your customers.

non sm farmer

So you're saying he doesn't charge less. He won't say what he charges.
He does complain about the high cost of bagged feed. I imagine that's the same whether you have SM or not though. Has anyone here bought chicken from him? How much did it cost?

Would it stand to reason that if you're not charging less Mr. Black that you are by your own terms screwing consumers?

Unfortunate that you haven't responded to how much you charge Mr. Black.

While it is somewhat true that a small flocker will be able to fetch a higher price due the SM regime in Canada, it is also then equally true that the current anonymous poster is fetching the "screwing consumers" price.

Small flockers exists to fight for the freedom of Canadians to make their own economic decisions when it comes to purchasing or raising poultry.

Of course he/she will most likely reply that they are not a poultry farmer.

We know that is not true, hence no name.


A shake of the head is in order.

Raube Beuerman

I have just finished the number crunching.

The summary is as follows for fresh, eviscerated, whole chicken:

57 birds/yr (ON average small flock) $18.25/kg evisc.
300 birds/yr (CFO maximum small flock) $10.03/kg
2,000 birds/yr (SFPFC requested limit) $ 5.54/kg
Typical ON retail chicken Apr. 2014 $ 4.37/kg
Typical US-Midwest retail chicken Apr. 2014 $ 3.27/kg

One of the greatest struggles is being forced to pay 85.4% more for my chicken feed, and the king's ransom to get my chickens to the nearest abattoir.

Note that these are draft, preliminary numbers that I need to review, verify, and refine further, but it seemed that many of you were ready to bust a lung in impatience, even though I had responded to the request, saying that I did not yet have the number tabulated but would post them when I did.

Please note that these are my numbers, and do not necessarily reflect a typical small flock farmer in Ontario, nor the rest of Canada. Others may have an even worse situation due to CFO's oppressive regulations.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Why have you given production costs for small farmers and selling prices for large ones? What is your selling price?

Anyway it seems from your numbers an "average small flock" would be charging consumers more than $18.25/kg? That's shocking! Especially when you consider your expressed concern about ripping off consumers.

I would have thought that "an average small flock" would be growing and processing their own feed as part of a small mixed farming operation? You know, perhaps 80 acres of crops for feeding pigs, layers, sheep, chickens, beef, goats and a cow. Wouldn't this be the most efficient way to be a small farmer? Wouldn't this allow you to avoid ripping off consumers because of inefficient production practices?
Of course if consumers want cheap food that means economy of scale. If they want things even cheaper that might mean slave labor, or illegal immigrants and dubious production standards. Kind of like the US model.

I do not have the land, skill, nor equipment for producing feed. I have tried purchasing locally grown grains, but there is none available, as I have been told that my consumption is too small for a grain farmer to bother with, or it is not grown locally because the farmer can buy it from elsewhere cheaper than what they can grow it.

I have been told that the majority of CFO chicken factory producers do not grow and produce their own chicken feed; they buy pelleted or mash feed from a feed mill, Wallenstein being the biggest producer in Ontario. So if the big boys don't, why do you expect the small guys to do so?

Yes, I agree that the $18.25/kg is shocking, and useless. That is why I stopped growing meat birds except for my one token bird that I currently have, and started investigating why and how the chicken SM system is currently designed. That is why I filed an appeal with the Tribunal.

People who grow 57 chickens per year do so for reasons other than profit. I suggest they are motivated by knowing exactly what the birds were fed, and how they were processed.

Perhaps this is sufficient proof for why the 300 bird limit needs to be changed.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Large producers have developed a highly specialized system that suits their production efficiencies. For many that means buying prepared feed. I understand your frustration but I think it's unfair for you to blame them for your circumstances. You say you have no land base for feed production therefore you are subject to the whims of the grain markets, feed dealers and all the other variables that make small scale production less cost effective. Next it seems you have no other livestock production that would provide synergies and therefore drive down your production costs. You can challenge yourself and try to find ways to improve your personal circumstances or you can look outwards and devote your energies to trying to destroy the success of others.
Look around you. Which choice will give you and your family the best quality of life?

I raise 100 laying chickens and sell their eggs year-round.

I also have ducks, geese, turkeys, and goats (both milk and meat).

I also do market gardening.

I believe each of these must be able to stand on its own financially, as well as contribute on a synergistic basis to the overall farm operation (ie. the whole must be greater & better than the arithmetic sum of the parts).

Meat chickens cannot meet this criteria, nor any other logical criteria for a small flock basis under current CFO regulations.

Chickens have the best FCR for all typical N. American farm animals. All other factors being equal, it should produce the most affordable meat. Chicken is widely appreciated as a dietary staple. That is why we initially chose chicken meat production as a solution to affordable meat for my family and our local community.

Unfortunately, CFO has other ideas in this area.

If you have some proven, magical method that I have not been able to figure out so as to get small flock chicken to be legal and reasonably priced, please share it here and now.

Generalities are not much good to me. Please be specific. If nobody can post a solution to this challenge, can we assume that there is no currently viable solution to this problem?

If there is no solution, is that OK with the farming community, as well as the general public in Ontario?

Does CFO have the right and duty (acting as agent for the government and the greater good of all Ontario citizens) to squeeze Small Flockers so hard that they are forced into extinction?

I have shown how a 2,000 bird exemption will enable affordable chicken to be produced by small flock farmers. Why is this not an acceptable solution?

For those who think that I should buy quota, the minimum CFO quota of 14,000 units at $1.75 million for the quota alone, allowing me to produce about 90,000 birds per year, which would totally swamp the local market many times over. With no local abattoir, it is not economically feasible. The ROI (Return on Investment) for over $3 million capital would be less than 2%, even if by some magic a brand new abattoir was built next door to my farm.

I can get a bank GIC that will pay me 3%, and I have no work to do whatsoever.

In other words, quota in a Northern Ontario remote community is a non-starter. If you think it is a great idea in spite of these facts, feel free to borrow the money (or invest your own money) and make it happen.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Whoa, whoooaaa, whoooooaaa, hold on a minute Mr.Black. Your comments are so full of logic, and are so sound and sensical, we may soon hear some anonymous heads exploding!!

Raube Beuerman

So just where are you getting your birds that you sell now killed and more importantly inspected ?

A local farmer is a dealer for Frey's Hatchery in St. Jacobs. That is 644 km. one way (1,288 km. round trip) for Mr. Frey to travel at get cost and time. I pay $2.50 per bird plus $18 per order for shipping. Seems fair to me.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

The nearest Provincially licensed abattoir that does custom processing of poultry is Valley Poultry Packers in Blezard Valley (near Sudbury ON), which is 189 km. 1-way (378 km. round trip).

The next nearest poultry abattoir is Horan's Meats in Ramore ON, which is 521 km. 1-way (1,042 km round trip). It's so far away, I'd have to pack a lunch for every chicken to eat enroute, and hire stewardesses to serve them.

My abattoir choices go from bad to worse due to geography.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

So I take it from your reply you are doing them yourself . I don't have problem with that but you better hope none of your customers ever get sick and come back on you .

There have been over the years many forms of livestock butchered on the farm with no problems . Many of the problems are when you get to the large facilities with the no brain .

I have one full-grown meat bird in my coop who awaits new CFO regulations for better, feasible, affordable chicken for Northern Ontario.

Until then, I am unwilling and unable to grow meat birds for my community, as it is impossible under current regulations.

Until this is resolved, there is no need for an abattoir.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

So you have one bird and claim to be a small flocker !
Sorry guy but 1 bird does not a flock make . It is 1 bird , a chicken , likely lonely at that and one does not a flock make .
Sorry guy but you are actually making yourself look bad in this .

Kind of reminds me of a guy who claimed to be the president of the dairy heifer raisers association . I think that group had one member too . He didn't have any dairy heifers on his farm either .

When was put in charge of the ass. their was over 70 in the group. I had dairy heifers at the time i was made president. I was losing money on every heifer after the border closed as were all the other members. When went to Queens Park i went because i was doing the foot work for 2 other people that were planing to go after it gained speed. By the second day it became clear that a lone person in front of Queens park for a longer time would be better. I was asked at that point to stay. I never spent one sent of the Money for anything other than expenses. I worked both sides of the border against R-Calf Many people tried to make me look bad when would not come home when certain people wanted me to, end my protest before we knew (We) had the money for P1P2. Many phones may have been tapped Stephen Webster Blyth Ont

I can corroborate everything Mr. Webster posted above - his tireless public and private, behind-the-scenes efforts on behalf of all of agriculture earned him the annual Huron County Federation of Agriculture award for outstanding contributions to agriculture in 2006.

Mr. Webster is also entirely correct in his belief that his style did generate some backlash but, after all, all he was doing was following Rule # 3 from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" which advises creating insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty among the people who oppose you - it worked!

Quebec dairy farmers pour milk on Parliament Hill when they don't get everything their way - the best we could muster is a middle-aged bachelor spending March of 2006 living in his car at Queens Park.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Thankyou Mr Thompson Many people work in private. I never wanted the spotlight. Many others did more than i did, and made it appear like it was just one person. Stephen Webster Blyth On.

Editor: Comment will be published if signed and resubmitted.

No thanks, Stephen or Glenn today?

In terms of chicken production, sounds like your location is simply not suitable.

Location is a factor in the costs and market potential for most businesses.


You have answered your own quest in your fight with CFO . You just don't realize it yet . Farming is not a small community venture unless you are looking to get into market gardening which really is no more than a niche market which can be gone tomorrow . As much as the government and farm groups cry and shout that Buy Local is going to be saviour of Ontario the sad true reality is that it is nothing more than a pipe dream that puts money into a growers pocket that does not get taxed but does generate all of the tax breaks . The small will never be competitive in the real world because as you have proven to yourself your cost is too great and people buy on price . Some even so much so that they are willing to spend extra or more on gas than what they are saving . The lie to them selves that they are out for a day trip or would have spent the money anyway .

If it was so great then your buddy Rabue would be selling all of his pigs out his back door that he grows/raises in his barn . Others try the direct market niche but still seem to cling to the Ont Pork or contract market for the bulk of their production . I think I heard of an explosion some where around Mitchell . Report was that it was mechanic/pork contract growers head .

I believe I can compete and win if the 2,000 bird/yr exemption is permitted.

What is the risk to CFO and the 1,400 millionaire chicken producers of allowing me to try? The millionaire chicken producers currently hold the delegated government powers, and 99.58% market share (ie. 824,231 birds produced by ON small flockers in 2013 vs. 196 Million birds produced by CFO millionaire chicken producers).

If I am wrong, and can't compete with 2,000 bird per year, it is my time, money, and effort that I am wasting.

If I am right, and can compete, I will gain a maximum of 0.001% market share of the Ontario chicken market (ie. 2000/(196,000,000 + 824,231)*100%= 0.001%).

Now there is a scary thought. One farmer who is allowed to gain a maximum of 0.001% market share for chicken in Ontario.

Where is the harm in allowing me to try?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Seems to be a lot of "I's" in that comment !

One has to wonder if that appeal was in the best interests of Ontario,small flocks or just yourself.

I was asked for my costs, and that is what I have provided.

I used "I" and "my" as these costs are personal costs. As previously stated, my cost are likely different from other small flockers. We are a very diverse group.

Only a small flocker is allowed to appeal, not an organization such as SFPFC (Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada).

I, as an individual, am acting as a proxy at the Appeals Tribunal, fighting for myself, all other small flockers, and the Ontario consumers who have no voice or say whatsoever.

My name is on the Tribunal appeal, but the appeal clearly stated that I am not the only one who is affected by CFO's oppression on small flockers.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

You are representing a group . How many members do you have ? Last count I remember was yourself and your wife . Has the group grown to more than 2 ?
At $2.00 each I would think your two toonies would not take you far in your fight .

Did I miss Mr. Black's response to his number of members?

again I ask .....what is the PFO position on this issue .....The PFO President usually has a lot to say about CFO and small flock farmers.
are you working together on this issue?
Stan H.

That place where you can do what you want with 2000 birds is out there . You just may have to relocate to be able to do as you want . There is more to it then just deciding you are wanting to raise your own birds . Much like some on here , it seems your thinking is that we live in the USA . We have different laws here , higher prices for the same product .

Actually there is no harm in you doing it . It only matters if you get caught ! Worse would be have a desease out break .

Whether one agrees or disagrees with SM one thing really stands out. You have complete control over so many aspects of farming but apparently you haven't been able to manage to produce other non supply managed livestock or get a handle on your feed supply. I think we all get the fact that you want something for free (quota) that others have to pay for and you are willing to devote significant resources to achieve this.

Also how close is your nearest neighbor?

I own 113 acres that I bought in 1980 for $22,500.00.

I have looked at the purchasing of additional farmland, but at today's land prices, I cannot find a way to make it pay, even with ultra low financing from Farm Credit Canada or others.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I this see you've posted a number of times over the past couple of days but may have missed seeing this one.

In addition to the unanswered question about distance of your nearest neighbour in what may be a pristine vacation paradise, I would also like to know how they feel about the idea 2,000 chickens living next door?

I might "expect the small guys to do so" because that is one possible business model that might help someone succeed without bashing others who are successful.

Not all regions of the country are suitable for growing grain. To attempt to grow grain in an unsuitable area is not financially feasible, not sustainable, and not environmentally sound. That would be clearly against the principles of Small Flockers.

Is it fair and wise to establish "1 size fits all" chicken regulations that are designed to significantly benefit 1,400 millionaire chicken producers, then impose that same regulation on the other 99.98% of the population who are forced to survive under that regulation in spite of totally different circumstances, market forces, lack of infrastructure, and diverse economics?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

You say you lack the land skill or equipment to produce your own feed. If you choose not to acquire them then you must purchase feed. You are free to make that choice but either way you are stuck with the reality that your operation is small and therefore you will pay a premium for feed. That premium makes you uncompetitive. And I notice the question about your neighbour wasn't answered. Would they have any thoughts about 2000 birds beside them?

The house of my nearest neighbour is about 0.5 km from my house and my coop. They bought eggs from us on Monday of this week.

If a small flocker is a problem with 2,000 birds per year, how much of a problems do the biggest CFO chicken factory producers create?

I previously estimated the largest Ontario chicken farms have 99,122 units of quota (or more, see ), and therefore produce 637,000 birds per year.

The largest millionaire monopoly chicken farms in Ontario produce 318 times more than what a small flocker might produce if we get our wish with the 2,000 bird limit.

If small flockers at 2,000 birds/yr are defined as unacceptable to the environment and/or neighbours, what is a chicken factory that is 318 times bigger?

One of Dr. King's definitions for immoral laws are the ones that are written differently, or are applied differently to the "friends" vs. the oppressed.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

You made your Manitoulin location decision for your own reasons and personal history and this was reflected in the purchase price for the land.

The distance to market, the size of the local market and distance to abattoirs were all part of that decision.

You made the choice of location that is the source of many of your lack of options.

There are many entrepreneurial small scale farms and small flocks that are operating effectively across Ontario, but they have more suitable locations closer to markets.

Maybe you should appeal your location to the Tribunal.

You get what you pay for.

Paraphrasing and clarifying, you seem to be stating that anyone and everyone must take responsibility for choosing to live in Northern Ontario, and they have nobody but themselves to blame for the resulting consequences.

No wonder CFO's map of Ontario and Chicken Districts (see ) shows all of Northern Ontario as white in colour, "Terra Ingognita", where dinosaur and dragons still roam the earth.

Note that CFO also colours USA the same white colour as Northern Ontario, an equally foreign area as far as CFO is concerned?

It is nice to know where the people of Northern Ontario stand with you.

In case you didn't know, Northern Ontario is 90% of Ontario's land mass. Canada is a world-leader in mining and mining technology. A lot of that activity is focused in Ontario and Quebec. Of the 17,000 people employed by
Ontario’s mining industry in 2004, 84 percent work in Northern Ontario.

Of the 850,000 people in Northern Ontario, how and by whom should these people be fed?

And what about a child who is born to "silly" parents who choose to live in Northern Ontario? Is that child equally damned in your eyes?

Should all Ontario funding of roads, hospitals, schools, ambulances, police, government offices, etc. be restricted to areas South of Parry Sound, as you see the world?

In case you didn't know, a significant portion of Ontario's agriculture, lumber, minerals, electricity, and other commodities come from Northern Ontario. The people and businesses in Northern Ontario pay taxes too.

Some of us think we shouldn't be treated as second class citizens.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Wow, that is not what was written!

Read it again with a little more calm perspective.

The 2,800 farms in Northern Ontario represent 4.3% of Ontario total,Land in crops represent 4.4% of Ontario's total,Dairy production 3%,Hog farming.05%,Beef 6%,Sheep 3%,Poultry and eggs 1%,Fruit 2% and the list goes on and on.

I think we all know how and by whom the Population of Northern Ontario are being fed.Other than moving some topsoil and the Sun a little north l don't know how those numbers can feed the 7% of Ontario's population in the North.

Although l've never considered Manitoulin Island the "remote" Ontario north, you probably share some of the same chicken growing problems with people in the real Northern Ontario communities,that being expensive feed,poor land, and lack of a local processor.Even without the CFO around none of those problems would be eliminated.
I refer you to the story BF did back in 2012 about a Poultry Abbattoir being proposed for Thunder Bay and some of the problems facing them,Manitoulin Island would face a magnification of those same problems.You talk about a farmer having to make a profit in chicken but an Abbattoir is the same way.

You are far better off trying to get a few other small flockers in your area together and make the single 4-5 hr trip to Hanover.

Small Flock farmers need to be as fully integrated as possible if we are to produce affordable food.

The small flock farm I envision delivers safe, nutritious, affordable eviscerated chicken in a plastic bag to the public who comes to the farm gate to buy this chicken.

The majority of CFO factory chicken farms sell the birds live, to be processed by others.

To compare one to the other, the obvious point of comparison is eviscerated chicken, ready to purchase.

That is why I chose $/kg eviscerated chicken, ready for retail purchase.

As I have said for 3 years now, nobody in their right mind tries to be a small flock chicken farmer with the expectation of running a profitable business. That is why the average flock is just 57 birds per year; enough chicken to feed about 1 family.

If someone is growing chicken for themselves as a small flock farmer because they detest the chicken for sale in retail stores, they may also grow some chicken for their extended family, or the elderly next door neighbours, or the young struggling family down the block. I suggest all of that is done as service to their fellow mankind and community, not as a profit-orientated business.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

What is the official cfo price for quota

As I understand it, CFO receives notice of all quota transfers, logs the data, but keeps it secret.

Other jurisdictions publish the data.

I wonder why CFO is so secretive here, and in all other things?

CFO does not control the sales, but has regulatory powers to do so. CFO refuses to control its membership

and its dealings in quota, because that would not be in the best interest of its 1,400 millionaire


CFO regulations expressly state that all Board members must act in the best interest of CFO.

I think that should say "in the best interest of Ontario".

How long will CFO be allowed to act in its selfish best interest, rather than the best interest of


There's the million dollar question!

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

You've been holding up US chicken prices as proof Canadian producers are screwing consumers. Now you've just cited one of many reasons US chicken is cheaper. Disregard for the environment in some areas! One other point you may be unaware of is claims by a US chicken producer association that US contract growers are just modern day slaves serving the large integrated feed companies. Makes your Martin Luther King comparison ironic don't you think? Last time I checked, King was opposed to slavery!!!!

Do some research and you will find out this poster is absolutely on target.

The US dairy and poultry industries also survive on a huge amount of Mexican labour - more slavery.

Be careful comparing and then remember the billions in subsidies in the US farm bill.

And the sm people here don't use Mexican or latin American Labour ?

As we are finding out everyone uses foreign workers to some extent,they just don't have to travel so far into the US and in some states no winter clothes are required.

The need for winter clothes is relevant in what way ? Please clarify

Mexican worker starting the planting season in winter clothes

Mexican worker starting the planting season in Ontario..winter clothes required!

US poultry growers aren't forced to do what they do. On the other hand, slaves and Canadian consumers are forced into serving their respective "masters" whether it be a plantation owner or a Canadian dairy and/or poultry farmer.

Why do supply management supporters insist on being so deliberately-obtuse about the obvious?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

"71.6% of the nations poultry farmers earn a below poverty level income from their poultry operations and by USDA standards would qualify for food stamps if they weren’t to proud to ask."

In your posting "US Style Chicken Production" ( see ), you posted a valuable link that discusses the current plight of US chicken farmers.

Many of the Supply Management ("SM") supporters might read that link and say, "US chicken farming in 2014 sounds like the 1960's in Canada. Thank goodness Canadian chicken farmers had the sense to lobby for Supply Management from 1920's to the 1970's, and not stop until we got the government to act."

As I previously posted, I am somewhat aware of the difficulties faced by US chicken farmers (see ).

I propose to you that before SM arrived in Canada, both the Canadian consumers and the Canadian chicken farmers were being abused by "Corporate Agribusinesses". The farmers fought back against this tyranny and oppression by "Corporate Agribusiness", eventually receiving SM to protect the Canadian chicken farmer.

When SM got established, "Corporate Agribusiness" was very upset with the government. "Corporate Agribusiness" had fought a long, steady, and expensive lobbying of the government, but failed when SM got passed in Dec. 1971.

What was "Corporate Agribusiness" to do next, after SM was passed into law?

"Corporate Agribusiness" swallowed hard, and started courting the newly empowered Canadian chicken farmer. The previous animosity between these two factions slowly dissipated (ie. the hatchet eventually got buried, though not too deeply, as we see now and again). "Corporate Agribusiness" was crafty, and the chicken farmers were enticed more and more by the trinkets given and enjoyed by "Corporate Agribusiness". Soon, the chicken farmers were infected by a rising tide of greed, grandeur, and arrogance.

"He prompts you what to say, and then listens to you, and praises you, and encourages you. He bids you mount aloft. He shows you how to become as gods. Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his." Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890)

Through all of that, what became of the Canadian consumer and the Small Flockers who were left behind in the pit of oppression?

In the 1950's, both the chicken farmers and consumers were equally abused. One select sub-group managed to climb up out of the pit of oppression, then turned their back on the consumer and small flockers. Those who were freshly set free were soon helping the "Corporate Agribusiness" continue abusing all those still left in the pit, if not making the severity and frequency of the abuse even worse. Perhaps it was the Stockholm Syndrome at work, perhaps not.

Either way, how soon the newly powerful chicken farmers forget who was suffering equally with them, suffered beside them, and continues to suffer at the hands of the new master and his whip.

Today, the consumers and small flockers in Canada have virtually no voice whatsoever. A huge bureaucracy has been created around CFC, CFO, OFPMC, etc., but consumers and small flockers are shunned and cannot participate, nor complain. Neither consumers nor small flockers get to sit at the table when discussions are held on chicken prices, proposing and passing oppressive regulations, or who will receive another gift of free quota.

I wonder why.

The same ugly power, "Corporate Agribusiness", holds all the cards, both in the US and Canada.

In Canada, "Corporate Agribusiness" has a pseudonym, which is "Supply Management". It's merely a different cut from the same cloth.

If SM-supporters, SM-reformers, and SM-abolitionists can all see the problems in the US, why can't all of them see the same problems under their very noses here in Canada?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Integrated feed companies control the industry and earn an enormous return on investment some say it's greater than 30%.

No system is perfect but without SM producers get screwed.

According to the so-called "logic" expressed above, it is perfectly OK to victimize over 30 million consumers, and turn non-supply managed farmers into victims of financial bullying, just so about 15,000 quota owners don't get "screwed".

It's this arrogance, and chutzpah, on the part of supply management supporters, and their belief that 15,000 of them are not just the only farmers who matter, they are the only people who matter, which defines exactly why supply management is not well-liked, will not be missed.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Can you give us a day or time-frame on the SM demise ? Should Mr. Black rush out and get a building permit for his new broiler barn or hold off.

I don't see the Supply Management issue on any of the Ontario Political Parties agenda's in the forthcoming election but you seem to know all.

The timing of the end of supply management is one of the thorniest facets of the system - it's bad public policy, it's bad economic policy, it always has been, and always will be. Yet, like cartoon characters which seem to stay suspended in thin air when they walk off the edge of a cliff, supply management refuses to fall.

Rationally, it makes no sense that supply management has lasted this long, let alone ever got established in the first place. Politicians were warned that supply management would pit farmers against each other, and that it would create a high-cost system which would disadvantage consumers, as well as eat up oodles of resources simply defending it from critics - the warnings about the substantial limitations of supply management, were all accurate, and then some, yet the dinosaur refuses to die.

We're now well past the point where the "smart money" is out of supply management, and the people left in it are the so-called "bitter-enders" - they simply refuse to believe the supply management "sky" could ever fall, and act accordingly.

Unfortunately for supply management's defenders, they seem to place an inordinate amount of faith in government, even in spite of the well-known history of government to support something 100%, right up until the moment they don't.

The critical question about it all, however, is for farmers to ask themselves - "Can I risk my farming career, and all of my money, on something completely dependent on legislation which could change at any time?"

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

If l didn't know it was 2014, I'd say that was something l would have read back in 91 or 92.. but that would have been 20+ years ago wouldn't it.

The government allowed SM to get started. The government has responsibility to end it in an effective & responsible manner.

The farmers who entered SM, did so in good faith. If they have been playing by the rules under SM, they need to be allowed to exit gracefully. Nobody wins, and many people would be needlessly hurt by the government purposefully causing the roof on the SM barn to collapse while it is full of innocent people.

Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada ("SFPFC") has proposed a number of quick effective methods to carefully and humanely bring SM to its rightful and long overdue end

If SM die-hards stonewall, fight, and resist they can slow or stop the transition for quite a while. However, by doing so, they dramatically increase the odd that the system will not end until it suddenly collapses catastrophically without warning. That is when many "innocent" people will be badly hurt, or killed; financially, figuratively, and in reality.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

How many members do you represent?

CFO states that, according to their records, there are 15,129 small flock chicken farmers in Ontario in 2013. Canada-wide, we estimate there are more than 50,000 small flock chicken farmers. When you add the other classes of poultry, we estimate between 60,000 to 75,000 small flockers.

Card-carrying, membership dues paying members of Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada (SFPFC") is a minute fraction of those totals, small enough that CFO (Chicken Farmers of Ontario) and CFC (Chicken Farmers of Canada), and the governments have erroneously assumed that they can ignore all small flockers as a triviality and nuisance. As stated numerous times before, I have been asked to keep the membership list and the number of members as confidential. I can say that our membership list is steadily growing at an exponential rate.

More and more each day, CFO, CFC, and the governments will be learning it is ineffective and dangerous to their health to ignore, oppress, and mistreat people, no matter how arrogant and powerful they may assume they are.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

So it seems we are back to the key question. What exactly is a "is a minute fraction of" 60000-75000?

Fewer than 5, 10, 100, or 1000?

You were asked about the 2,000 bird operation you want to build and you neighbor's reaction to this idea? I recall seeing this question asked here at least a couple of times. I do not recall seeing your response.

A recent study shows that having a mega chicken factory within 10 miles of spinach grown in farmer's fields to raise the risk of E. coli contamination by 720 times the background risk level (see ). That chicken induced contamination cannot be easily washed off (see )

Did any of those mega chicken factories talk to all neighbours within 10 miles or more?

I have not spoken to my neighbour as of yet. We are a long, long way from getting a building permit on anything.

If we are successful at the Tribunal, Small Flockers will set the appropriate policy so as to guide our members (me included), and all others on doing the responsible thing in all issues, this one included.

Is CFO willing to make a similar commitment for all the issues for which they are responsible under statute and regulation?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Can or do any other wild animals carry E.coli or and other disease .
Do they stay out of farmers fields ? Do they whatch where they shit ?

In you raise the issue of wild animals who may carry E.coli.

I presume you use this question to somehow deflect responsibility for E.coli contamination and food poisoning from salad greens that has been scientifically correlated to nearby mega chicken factory operations.

As you likely know, there are many sources of E.coli.

Many other sources does not explain away, nor diminish the dramatically high increased risk from proximity to a mega chicken factory; 720 times higher than the background risk level.

As we should know, correlation doesn't prove causation. There is a slim chance that this is a spurious correlation that means nothing. However, that is highly unlikely, especially with such a huge risk ratio of 720 times.

As an example, the odds ratio for cigarette smoking and lung cancer vary between 7 (1 cigarette per day) to as high as 16.3 (25+ cigarettes per day). See 1947 epidemiological study of Doll, and 1951 study by Hill

Compare the odds ratio of 720 for E.coli/chicken factory to 16.3 for cigarette-lung cancer.

Do you still want to ignore this strong prima facie evidence that mega chicken factories are part of a flawed system that is a menace to our society?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Was not trying to make a mockery of any thing or any one . Simply just trying to show that there are many sources . Some are wild life also that we can not control and keep out of crops .
Would not a 2000 bird flock have the same affect ? Just how many years ago was a 2000 bird flock considered a factory or huge flock ? Some times you really need to take a look at the point and not take every thing as an attack . What is it with you who are the anti group . If some one raises any point you just go off .

Good to know there's no intragation because of sm big feed companies would then control the cost of production formula

Sarcasm at its best.

For those who aren't sufficiently aware, Corporate Agribusiness has a secret, insidious strangle hold on the feed business. Of all the branches of this choking vine, chicken feed is the oldest, biggest, strongest, and the most questionable of ethics.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Yes, I have seen the documentary Food Inc. and a few other reports. I have read the satisfaction survey of chicken farmers in Delmarva Peninsula, the largest chicken growing area in USA.

I agree there are some troubling issues reported from the US chicken industry, from the farmer all the way up to the retail meat counter. US mega-corp food companies (Tyson, Perdue, etc.) assure us that all is OK, just like their counterparts in Canada do. I don't believe that all is OK in the US system.

I have never suggested that Canada should copy the US system.

There are many other countries besides USA that produce less expensive chicken than Canada (eg. Peru, Brazil, Israel, etc.), so my complaint against CFO and their other counterparts gouging Canadians still stands.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

How odd some people are when they can't see the forest for the trees . What do you suppose the average wage is in those countries ?
I think I see an opportunity for you Mr Black to get off your island and go produce 2000 birds in other countries .

I would urge you read your last paragraph and hopefully you will understand why even anti SM people are snickering . You are making less sense all the time .

I am opposed to supply management, yet I found absolutely nothing to snicker about in Mr. Black's last paragraph - I read the paragraph several times, it made perfect sense to me, and I can't find anything either out-of-place or illogical.

Please, anonymous, and dismissive, poster of the above message, enlighten us with your great wisdom, and tell us all just exactly what is amiss and/or contradictory in Mr. Black's last paragraph.

Why is it that people who, like the anonymous poster of the above message, accuse others of not being able to "see the forest for the trees", yet are, themselves, the worst offenders.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I guess it is just too easy to not see that the climate alone will affect COP just a wee bit . I thought the higher educated type would have picked that up in a heart beat . I won't even bother with the others since you can't and won't accept them as the truth .

You complain that I make irrelevant comparisons between Canada and tropical areas that have totally different weather, and that these differences affect COP (Cost of Production).

I agree local weather affects COP.

However, the comparison I made was price of chicken in the Mid-West USA. The Mid-West includes Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, etc. To me, there is only a minor (if any) difference in their weather and Ontario.

You might have had a valid point if I had made the comparison to Georgia, Mississippi, and Florida; but I didn't.

Again, I feel the COP price comparison stands. If you still feel you are right, please post the links to independent, unbiased, objective data that we can review and discuss further. Until then, the data from US Bureau of Labor Statistics that I referenced stands as supporting my point, and is unchallenged.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I suggest you are backtracking like so many SM bashers do when confronted with some hard facts,suddenly its "maybe we shouldn't copy the US system"

Now you want to compare costs with the likes of Brazil or Peru,why not China,India or maybe even Bangladesh?

Maybe some consumers in this Country would like to know where some of the Chicken on the Grocery store shelves could come from without SM in place.

I find your invoking the words and memory of Dr. King in connection with your activities is deeply offensive.

Next you will compare yourself to Ghandi.

Please stop.

What is pathetic and offensive is the extent to which anopnymous farmers on this site seem to see nothing wrong with the ability of a few farmers to hold over 30 million consumers and non-supply managed farmers hostage to their greed.

I see nothing in this story referring to Dr. King - if Mr. Black has compared his struggle to end the oppression inflicted by supply management, to the struggle by people to end racial segregation, then it is an entirely appropriate comparison, and nothing for the above poster to find offensive.

The real problem is that farmers have for so-long been brainwashed into believing that they are the back-bone of all things good, they simply refuse to believe that supply management, and the oppression inflicted by it, are the epitome of all things bad.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Mr. Black and yourself should demonstrate your complete confidence in your convictions. 

You should go to a couple of bars in Detroit and explain your views that it is entirely appropriate to compare the struggle to end the oppression inflicted by supply management, to the struggle by people to end racial segregation.

The people in Detroit will understand the being held hostage to a monopoly as what has happened with the bridge a few canadian s wanting to do business with them might bring up their spirits

You assume and then criticize me for trying to pass myself off as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

That is not what I said, nor what I meant.

Dr. King wrote that letter from the Birmingham Jail for a purpose. As I understand it, he wrote the letter to explain and inspire. Dr. King rightfully saw himself as a teacher for his people.

I happen to see the wisdom of his teachings. I am inspired by his example, and have chosen to apply his teachings to my life and circumstances.

It is unfortunate you take offense, but that is life. To each his own.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I re-read my previous post several times to see how anyone could possibly interpret it as accusing you of trying to pass yourself off as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I still can't see how you read it so wrong.

It said....
"I find your invoking the words and memory of Dr. King in connection with your activities is deeply offensive."

Seems pretty self-explanatory, but let me try again.....

As stated in the very funny "I have a dream" post, it is entirely inappropriate to compare your tiny personal agenda to end supply management, to the historic struggle by people to end racial oppression, discrimination and segregation".

Hope that resolves your misunderstanding.

It doesn't matter whether it's racial segregation or economic segregation caused by supply management, the struggle against the oppression caused by both is equally-commendable, and effectively the same thing.

Mr. Black's comparison is entirely appropriate - yours is nothing more than a cheap-shot, and anonymous, denial of the reality of the oppression and economic slavery caused by supply management at both the retail counter and in the rest of the farming community.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

How can you possibly call Black's personal struggle to grow more chicken's and Dr. Martin Luther King's struggle and leaderhip of the Civil Rights Movement "effectively the same thing"?????

If Black is successful do you think he will also win the the Nobel Peace Prize?

Do you think we would have a national holiday named after Black?

Do you think hundreds of streets in Canada will be renamed in his honor?

Do you think a county will be rededicated in his honor?

Do you think a memorial statue to Black will be erected in our national capital?

Do you think there will be a world-renowned Mr. Glenn Black Foundation to commemorate his life and work and to honor his national and international contributions?

Anne Onymous

You ask 7 hyperbolic (ie. gross exaggeration) questions that seem to be an attempt to ridicule and mock.

Was that your purpose? If not, what was your purpose?

As far as I am aware, neither I nor any other small flocker has asked nor expected to be compared favorably to Dr. King.

Small Flockers want our freedom, and an end to the tyranny, oppression, and the stripping away of our civil rights by the CFO minority.

Why must that be anonymously mocked and ridiculed?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

It is not a question of being inspired by Dr. King.

Millions of us are inspired by his work.

It is not a question of you asking or expecting to be compared favorably to Dr. King - it is that both Stephen and yourself are comparing your personal causes to a cause of epic and historic cause for all humanity.

It is ridiculous and offensive to compare them.

Stephen said, “the struggle against the oppression caused by both is equally-commendable, and effectively the same thing.”

You said, “Small Flockers want our freedom, and an end to the tyranny, oppression, and the stripping away of our civil rights by the CFO minority.”

Can you not see, that you simply can't compare fighting the supply managed systems that you have every right to disagree with, and avenues to challenge them - to the historic struggle by people to end racial oppression, discrimination and segregation??

How does the vast difference in context completely elude you?

You question my ability to see the context differences between Small Flocker's struggles, and those of blacks and other minorities who sought equality and their civil rights.

Yes, I agree, it's a completely different issue, with different context. Yes, the oppression was greater and longer lasting for the blacks and other minorities. If someone were to compare, Small Flockers suffer less than a mere inconvenience, versus the huge civil rights abuses historically heaped on the blacks and other minorities.

In my "Flouting the Law" posting I quoted Dr. King so as to explain and support the concept of unjust laws.

I assume there may be many unjust laws. Should any unjust laws be accepted or supported? I don't think so.

Is it wrong, or an insult, to apply the same principles to all unjust laws? Again, I don't think so.

Why this stirs such a vitriolic response is interesting.

Perhaps Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 - 1860) was right when he said,

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being

Are we at Stage 1 or 2 for Schopenhauer's Truth?

Dr. King also said,

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."


"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."


"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

If it was just the Small Flockers who are abused and violated, it might be overlooked by most people. However, CFO and the huge machinery of Supply Management regularly and consistently abuse all 13.9 million residents of Ontario. How can anybody overlook that?

How does anybody justify their silence, or worse yet, there active support for SM when it inflicts its abuse on all of Ontario; so that 1,400 millionaire chicken farmers can have more and more?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Yes it is interesting there is such a vitriolic response.
I am going to say that the reason is that it has nothing to do with the original other words, it is a simple ploy ,to change the direction of the discussion. I have seen this maneuver used many times and it adds nothing to the fact it is nothing but an attempt to end the discussion that is showing SM in such a bad light.

Editor: comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

I agree this should be a class action suit by the people of ontario or just the none quota people I don't like supply management label because all farmers have to think about supply management quota people are the ones who control it

In the debate about the increase to 2000 birds, many of the posters below attempt to argue that a small flocker simply cannot be efficient enough compared to their SM counterparts.

Where their argument falls apart(doesn't it always), in defense of SM, is that if someone raising 2000 birds cannot be efficient enough, then why do regulations exist to prevent them from trying?

Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON

The argument only falls apart in the minds of SM bashers.In fact quite some time ago Stephen told us he couldn't see a future for any kind of ag in Ont so I'm not sure why he is involved in any discussion involving successful farmers.
Anyway it's called supply management for a reason. Whether or not you agree with this system surely you recognize that it requires effort and controls to balance supply and demand. You can argue about exactly what number should be exempt but using your logic why shouldn't the exemption be increased to 5,000? Heck maybe it should be 10,000 or 15,000.

The fact that there needs to be an exception is the problem

What really needs to be realized today is that agriculture in this province is full of exemptions . Don't kid yourself by thinking that agriculture has rights Yes there are a few but not as many rights as exemptions many of them being looked at all the time and the chopping block is being polished .

Wild swings in either supply, or demand, or both simultaneously will produce alternating feasts and famines which are very wasteful, and hurt everybody. It is similar to all passengers on a ferry rushing to the starboard rail to see what the loud noise was, thereby capsizing the ship.

Sufficient regulation to prevent these types of violent swings would benefit everybody. In other words, sufficient regulation for the greater good of all.

What we have today in SM is anything but that.

The current SM regulations create and maintain a private club of 1,400 in Ontario, 2,700 Canada-wide, who are promised unlimited benefits that will flow their way at the expense of the public who will be involuntarily milked (like a vampire bat milks a cow's throat) to produce those benefits.

Can we agree that the exemption level chosen (whether 0, 300, 2,000 or some other number) should be set at some number that is optimum, producing the greatest good for Ontario and Canada?

That sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Let CFO present its opinion where that optimum lies; not in CFO's best interest, but in Ontario's best interest.

I will do the same.

May the best argument win at the Agriculture Appeals Tribunal.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I think the the limit in place was just supported.

You realize that when you talk about the perils of alternating feasts and famines you are discribing the major problems of the Beef and Pork industries in this Country to a TEE not the Poultry Sector or any other SM Agr-industry.

The number should be 2,000 birds annually, because that is the number several other province's have found to be a fair a realistic number for every one involved. Ontario Farmers are only asking for the same rights farmers in others parts of Canada already have

Sean McGivern
President PFO

So Sean your logic is because some other province has made a choice that may or may not be appropriate for their unique circumstances Ontario should do what they do?

There is nothing Unique as you put it, about what the other provinces are doing to help their small farmers, its unique that Ontario doesn't care about it smaller producers the one's who generally spend most if not all of their dollars close to home, unlike larger farmers who generally deal with specialized out of the local area businesses.

The small flock program and rural diversity this creates has been so successful that is Sask, last year they actually doubled the number of birds one farm can raise annually without quota to 4,000 birds. We i talked to both farmers and Sask Brolier Board staff, they all said its about doing what is right for the industry on a whole and working together and by allowing small farmers to raise a certain number of broilers annually it was good for the rural economy, since those birds were slaughter close to home, the farmers purchased feed from local feed mills and they invested in infrastructure to house there birds, so the economic spin off far out weighted and potential loss to quota holders. If a primarily rural providence like Sask with a small urban population can support this type of program then just think how highly successful it could be in Ontario with a massive urban population and declining rural population.

I have had several quota holders tell me that they do not feel comfortable that all new quota is given out to current producers fro free they felt that it should be used 100% for specialty markets that open new doors and expand the demand for chicken and that it should go new producers not already well established producers who are up and running.

Sean McGivern

I don't see much of a future for agriculture in Ontario as long as supply managed farmers are allowed to be, and often are, financial bullies in the farm community.

Why would any young, non-supply managed farmer, willingly become a second-class citizen in his/her own community for his/her entire farming career?

I bash supply management because it is rotten to the core, and deserves to be ended NOW. We owe it to the next generation of farmers to end the selfishness, the greed, and the narrow-mindedness of the present generation of farmers, particularly those who own quota.

To turn Winston Churchill's war-time quote sideways, supply management is the epitome of - "Never in history, has so much been given to so-few, by so-many"

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Fortunately for Ontario farmers and consumers, the future of agriculture in this province is not being guided by your narrow ideological views.

I have lived in rural communities most of my life and never felt bullied by dairy farmers. Their success and stability helps many rural suppliers and they buy a lot of inputs. Many of these people and non-SM farmers are my friends and we have worked together on many farm issues.

In a theoretical and ideal model of the world, supply management might not be needed but we live in the real world where most countries have tariffs, subsidies and interventionist policies developed by painful history and experience. Since this global reality is only going to change and evolve very slowly, supply management of the Canadian variety will likely continue to change slowly as well. You will likely find this slow process very painful. It will not end in our lifetimes.

I suspect reading this will give you mental fits, but here goes. 

Different commodities have markedly different fundamentals that mean they function best with different market structures. One size (approach) does not fit all. I know that statement will not sit well with your ideology. Market theory is just that and it should not be viewed as more.

Short shelf-life staples like milk and eggs are markets that are very dysfunctional and inherently unstable if they are not managed markets.  This dysfunction causes politically unpopular problems for consumers, processors, retailers and farmers and, for these reasons, EVERY COUNTRY with significant milk and egg sectors manages these markets. Don't hold your breath because this international political and market reality will NEVER change. 

Abolishing our supply managed systems would cause a lot of disruption but there would be no upside. The rest of the world would grind on unchanged. We would get US dumping but no market access. We would have US farm prices without their subsidies and no ability to sell to the CCC for market clearing. This is a given with the US.

Retail prices here would likely be unchanged. Food prices in the two countries are already always competing for the lowest in the world. (in relation to disposable income)

I have been involved in international trade negotiations for 4 decades and that experience has naturally shaped my views. Your views are simplistic and naive.

I think most people here don't like to provoke you about your fervent dogmatic ideological views but I think it must occasionally be done. Your views need some balance here. 

Sorry to the other readers in advance for the reaction that will likely follow now.

By the numbers, you are not a non-supply managed farmer under the age of 40, and therefore, you are completely out-of-touch with the reality of the financial bullying they, and, by defintion, the next generation of farmers, experience on the part of supply managed farmers.

You have made the fatal mistake of believing that your experience is the same reality faced by the generation younger than you, and that mistake is one that old people often make.

I really don't care if you have been involved in international trade for 70 years - you simply don't know what's boiling under the surface on the backroads of Canada.

While you claim my views are simplistic and naive, the under-40s farmers I regularly talk to, tell me I'm completely correct, and then some - therefore, who you gonna believe, an old coot who doesn't know what's going on anymore, or the younger generation which does?

And besides, if you knew anything, and had any credibility at all, why stay anonymous? That makes you nothing but a coward and/or a pompous twit.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Someone has just been taken to the woodshed and it couldn't have happen to a more deserving individual.

Who came up with this UNDER 40 being the new farmer . Heck by the time 40 came around I had the best years of life already used up paying off debt .
If so many are waiting till they are 40 "get at it" then maybe we need to have a law that says you need to keep nursing until you are on your own with a mortage and a wife who will nurse you . Some thing seems wrong with the new wave of thinking and young people not getting out from mother hens wings .

Do you expect people to be impressed by the logic, “younger people know best”??

They are not impressed.

I was attempting to give a high-level view of the geo-political and economic forces shaping trade policy based on past, current and continuing work in that field.

These overall global trends are based on fundamental international forces and not on the opinions of your group of under-40 non-SM farmers in Huron County that you meet that choose to tell you that you are completely correct. 

People who don’t think you are correct may not tell you or I suspect they may choose not to talk to you at all. I don't think all under-40 non-SM farmers think alike, they think for themselves and they are a diverse and intelligent group.

In addition, your reply was in no way a response to my points. It was simply an attack.

Only you and perhaps a few trolls think your attack crucified anyone.

I am sorry you found my post patronizing, I was simply trying to be factual and provide some balance to the discussion.

FYI - Any post I make cannot be signed - it is a contractual requirement of my position. This is not unusual in some sectors.

I think most people can judge the value of posts on the merit of the content. I welcome this opportunity and try to add value to this forum on occasion.

Faced with nothing but name-calling, bullying and empty "oh yea?" replies but no real responses, the "old fool" clearly out-manned and out-classed the trolls with knowledge and professionalism. Appreciate the balance added to the forum!

If you're such a big-shot, you will also know that any unsigned comment has an evidentiary value of zero - nobody knows who you are, and therefore, nobody can assign any evidentiary merit to anything you post. You could know, and be able to support, some of the things you post, and not others, and there's no way anyone could tell the difference.

And you were both patronizing, and dismissive - sorry, but I'm simply being factual, and trying to balance both your dismissive message, and your patronizing style.

To cut right to the chase, nobody knows if you're lying, or telling the truth when you claim that, for contractual reasons, you can't sign your name - it could easily be rubbish on your part, you could easily be the CEO of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario trying to write a "fluff" piece of self-serving propaganda, and nobody would know.

To look at it another way, you deserved to be attacked - anonymous posters, especially those who try to hide behind experience and/or ability which cannot be proven, and who post things which can't be proven, are not just trolls, they are un-deserving of being accorded any credibility at all, and that's what you deserve, nothing.

When it comes to trying to marginalize my comments about under-40s non-supply managed farmers, I sunk your battleship in the harbor. No amount of blathering about "fundamental international forces" can hide the obvious fact that supply management is on a collision course with the demographics of the farm community - or, in ther words, you are making the fundamental mistake of ignoring "fundamental domestic forces". Supply management is rapidly becoming an "old guy" system, supported by nobody but old guys with quota, and people like yourself, who have been hanging around so long that you've lost touch with what demographics even means.

Furthermore, it really is "trolls" like you, who think that by being anonymous, and posting sanctimonious crap which ignores the reality that supply management pits farmers against each other, which causes the ever-increasing dislike of supply management in the farm community, and not just by farmers under the age of 40.

Finally, your comment that "most people can judge the value of posts on the merit of the content" is the most sanctimonious and self-serving drivel I have ever seen on this site - without being able to assign any evidentiary merit to the posting because the poster is anonymous, means that nothing can be judged except the desire of the poster to never be questioned, or challenged.

I mean, really, how can you have all this experience and ability, and not know about the complete lack of merit accorded to anonymous postings?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

What is a name going to change ? I mean really now . You I am sure have not signed every post , you must have forgotten to sign a couple of the more than 10,000 you have posted .

To do the right thing , say the right thing and to be able to do so in a pleasant demeanor means more to me than being some ass because my name is ....

If it is sooo right then will you please raise the issue of not supporting SM at the next OFA PAC meeting . That might give you a little more credit to your name . You seem to not understand the fact that you are in a position to make the change but sit on your duff and complain . Get at it already .

Do you happen to remember Frank Burt from the Bull Pen . That was not his real name either .

By signing your comments it proves that your comments aren't from some marketing board staffer or company rep or politically motivated, your signatures gives credibility to your comments and helps to give some context and perspective on where your coming from and holds you accountable for what you say.

No one should be afraid to stand behind the words they have to share, if they believe in what they are saying to be true.

Sean McGivern

Editor: comment will be posted if resubmitted with phone number in accordance with our guidelines. Phone numbers are never published.

Everyone should have the right to comment,whether they are a staffer,rep or have some political agenda...even Presidents of farm organizations.

I personally don't care if the posts are signed or not,I think we can all tell when a fresh, intelligent, different point of view is brought on here.On the other hand we also don't even have to look at the so-called signature to know the same old re-treaded comments from some individuals,its gets to the point where one is left wondering if they are just on some recruitment project using every source of media available to them.
However the name-calling and disrespect by some of the so-called "credibility" group shows weakness in any argument they have.I suppose its a "me against the world" syndrome that they seem to enjoy but it has got old a long time ago.

Nobody, absolutely nobody, can tell a "fresh" and/or "intelligent" posting without knowing where, and who, it came from.

For example, I could, if I wanted to, produce the freshest, and most-intelligent posting supply management supporters would ever, or could ever, want to see, but that would be as much of a lie, and/or as much of a load of hooey, as anything coming from any other anonymous poster now.

Take a deep breath, and repeat after me - "anonymous postings are always garbage because nothing about them can be verified"

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

It is really strange that you don't think people have enough judgement to be able to evaluate whether the contents of any post are intelligent. Really strange.

Quality of content is what counts.
Name-calling and chip on the shoulder are embarrassing.
Some have far too high an opinion of themselves.
Always using personal attacks has destroyed all credibility of a few posters.
Like some politicians - the more they say, the less credibility they have.
Too bad, so sad.

Evidentiary value?  Who do you think you are, Clayton Ruby?

People can judge merit and do so every day.

People can see a signature does not guarantee that a post has any quality logic or thoughts.

The three or four regular signed posters on this forum have well-known ideological agendas and are probably the group that readers have the lowest expectations of it terms of content.

You would be surprised by the complete lack of merit accorded to some signed postings.

It's like this, my friend - it's bad enough when lay people give their opinion anonymously, but it is always unethical for a professional to do so. When somebody comes on this site, and claims to have qualifications he/she can't prove and/or won't prove because he/she insists on staying anonymous, that is unprofessional conduct of the highest order.

What's worse is that the poster who claimed to have all of these trade qualifications knows better than to try to foist off his/her opinions in this way. Too few farmers seem to be able to grasp the point that this poster was making fools of all those farmers, who through no fault of their own, can't see through his/her patronizing comments which he can, and/or won't, substantiate.

Furthermore, the epitome of willing-stupidity is your claim that some signed postings are without merit, yet you never identify which posting was lacking what particular aspect of merit, and even worse is that you won't identify yourself so that we can judge what basis, or qualifications, you might have so that we can judge what evidentiary value your comments may have.

And, sorry, but the entire basis of our legal system is that merit can only be judged when the person giving "evidence" does it openly, and is subject to cross-examination by opposing counsel - an agricultural forum, to have any credibility, must follow the same principles. Therefore, for anyone to believe that merit can be assigned to an anonymous posting, is right up there with believing in the Easter Bunny - that so many farmers are willing assign any evidentiary merit at all to anonymous postings, is a black mark on our industry.

In short, if you won't identify yourself, and if you won't identify the posting(s) which you claim are without merit, and if you won't reveal why the posting(s) lack merit, then get off the site, and take every other anonymous troll with you because you opinions are not just worthless, they are a waste of electronic ink.

And, get off it already about claiming those of us who oppose supply management have "ideological agendas" - we do, and it's called spreading the truth, something which supply management supporters fiercely oppose. We back up all of our claims with facts and/or basic economic principles, we sign our names to show readers who we are - if anything, supply management supporters are the ones with ideological agendas because they don't have either the facts, or economic principles to support them.

Hey, if you know what you are talking about, and have something to say, you'll gladly identify yourself - by claiming he/she is in a position where he/she can't identify himself/herself, the poster I trashed has effectively disclosed that he/she isn't in a senior enough position in his/her organization to know much of anything.

I'm quite-rightly fed up with supply management supporters who insist on staying in the woodwork and taking anonymous pot-shots because they don't have the talent, the facts, or even the understanding of economic principles, to do anything else.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

a person could come to the conclusion that mr Thompson owns this site deciding who should be able to contribute. kind of like squatters rights I guess.

Somebody has to provide balance to all those anonymous posters who seem to think they own the right to never having supply management be challenged.

The fact of the matter is that if you don't know what you are talking about, and have nothing to say, and that, by definition, includes every supply management supporter, it's just that much more important to not be anonymous when you demonstrate this lack of credibility.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The real problem with anonymous postings is that I could easily be posting arguments on both sides of the issue, one anonymously, and one with my signature attached - and doing it for no other reason than to get the gullible yokels on this site worked into a lather.

For example, I could easily write an anonymous posting praising all the things that I skewer when I sign my name to a posting opposing supply management, and all the gullible yokels on this site would fall all over themselves to see merit in my anonymous posting, but no merit in my signed posting, even though both come from the same person.

It's like this people, anonymous postings are garbage, and always will be, if for no other reason than because somebody could easily be playing you for fools by advocating both sides of the issue at once.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Has anyone else noticed that the few signed regular posters are either part-time farmers, wanna-bees or budding farm politicians rather than from full-time farmers?

Let me see if I have this straight - as long as an anonymous poster on this site is a full-time farmer, he/she has to be given the highest degree of credibility, but any signed comment critical of supply management can be immediately discounted, not because of the credibility of the poster, but because of what he/she does with his/her time.

I mean, come on really, people - what part of anonymous posters being both scum at the bottom of the credibility barrel, and simultaneously able to do no better than character assassination, do the anonymous supply management supporting trolls on this site not understand?

In addition, double come on really, what part of this particular anonymous posting has any merit at all?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

You seem to be hell bent on only two types of posters . What about those who want to see changes made to SM with out totally destroying it . You seem to miss the point of other countries having protection and programs we don't have here . So we could well concur that your thinking is well really not correct .

Sounds to me like some one needs to put on his "Big Boy Pants" and do his part at the next provincial OFA PAC meeting and get the subject on the agenda .
Untill that happens you are about as good a mastitis on a prize dairy cow .
SO get yer big boys pants on before you get to the point in life of having some one put them on you because you keep wetting the bed at the nursing home . And you know what happens when your in huggies . Always on your ass , wet and usually full of crap !

The dairy farmers/boards are trying to gain access to the import permits for the European cheese that will be coming here when the deal is finalized. That may take a while, but it will happen.

In addition, it certainly is embarrasing that some of the Canadian farmers have the nerve to complain about that deal, given the massive dollar difference.

We should be the leader in exporting since we are always talking efficiency and quality. China alone is a population of 1.3 billion.

The anonymous poster above has not addressed barriers to entry, or the fact that Canadian SM farmers are heavily subsidized by consumers.

The anonymous poster above is no doubt more interested is saving his/her political face, than moving Canada forward.

Raube Beuerman

The real problem with Canadian agriculture is that too many farmers seem to think it's perfectly OK for some pompous twit to hide behind the wall of anonymity, and wrap himself/herself in the flag of experience in trade, in order to patronize somebody who understands the divisiveness supply management has already caused on Canada's rural routes, and who isn't afraid to sign his name to his beliefs.

It's like this - when somebody decides to anonymously patronize me, I'm going to crucify him/her, and I have no reason to ever apologize for doing so.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Some might see your response as attempting to use name calling and focus on the poster as a way of diverting attention from the hollowness of your arguments. Just sayin'

When is the Crucifying going to start? All we have seen so from you so far is a feeble attempt at name-calling and something about backroads boiling?? That's hardly a stinging rebuttal to what l thought was an accurate account of what Global trade is all about.

and l don't remember anyone ever asking you for an apology !

Since you are so open and want to see Canada move forward could you post what the RMP numbers are for Pork please ? Can't seem to fing them any where but if I want I can get the GFO ones from the OMAF website .

Aside from the reports by the C.D. Howe, conference board of Canada, etc, why doesn't the government publish support #'s for SM?

We do know they are high, with tariff's ranging from 199-299%

I doubt that at the moment, or possibly for this whole year, pork may not recieve any support at all.

If you want to argue about transparency, then it must also exist in SM, and their support from consumers should also be published by OMAF

Raube Beuerman

If SM was in or part of the RMP I would be right in asking for their numbers BUT SM is not . So to ask again where are the numbers for Pork ?
Whats the matter , can't answer the question or what ?
Would sure be transparent to answer the question would it not ?

Not sure where you are going with this. What does this have to do with me? If the numbers are hidden as you claim, then how on earth would I know what they are?

The only link that may exist is that pork is an exporter, and generates a lot of spinoff jobs, and RMP adds some stability. Is that it?

Raube Beuerman

So, it would appear that you think it is OK. for Ontario pork and livestock to receive hidden subsidies for their export product to compete with the very little subsidized U.S. livestock industry, but it is not OK for SM to receive OECD subsidy equivalents.

It is all about trying to hide the fact of dollars which could and should bring on countervail actions . No more . No less .

It comes right down to the fact that supply managed farmers are the financial bullies in the farm community, while pork and livestock farmers, largely are not.

In addition, for about the 10,000th time, my always-anonymous supply management-supporting friends, subsidies come from taxpayers, including corporations, while producer subsidy equivalents, the funding for supply management, is disproportionately gouged out of the wallets of the poorest group of consumers - if there's any comparison at all between the two systems, it's only that the cheques are written on paper, for both.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Not being a SM supporter and for the 10,000 th time it would be nice if you could actually bring yourself to even remotely see there is a difference .
Actually to be factually correct the payment for SM comes from the processors who then charge the consumer . Sm does not get a direct cheque from the consumer .

Pork and Beef get their payments from Gov which is every citizen in the province or country who buys any thing from soup to nuts to fruitloops . So factually there is a diference .

Further since chicken is a cheaper buy than pork or beef then the consumer is getting a deal . I don't remember the last time an SM processor went bankrupt like Quality . Most SM processors have been bought out by their competition . Can't say the same for the others .

I was asking one of the suppose'd experts . Who else better to answer the question !
Not going any where just trying to get a little transparency since we are all in it together .

As for spin of jobs , yes it does help . You should also maybe ask the Quality workers where their job is .

Actually some off the workers have gone to the other plants in have many of the hogs.

Our business of cash cropping has no quotas.Our business of beef cattle farming has no quotas.Our business of seed production has no quotas.Get the picture, supply and demand in the world market dictate our price we receive when we want to sell.

Come in to the real world.If you say you can't compete on the world stage it's time to get out .We don't have quotas and have done well and not so well some years .What gives you the right to always make a profit and drive up our costs when you buy when times are bad. I want a level playing field

You may not have quotas but you do have Government support in the form of billions of Taxpayers dollars,whether it be good times or bad!

If fact you could not survive on the world market without Government assistance.

Like so many other Countries, you either over or under produce,you distort prices both to the farmers,retailers and consumers! Under those conditions l fully understand how you would want a level playing field,unfortunately its called Supply Management which you seem to be against!

Billions of tax payers dollars explain please

E-mail Premier Kathleen Wynne or the Honourable Gerry Ritz,l am sure they will provide you with the full Government expenditures in non-Supply Management agr-sectors.

I can guarantee you they won't separate out commodity by commodity especially what livestock farmers have received in Billions of $$$$ because it could cause a countervail action. It will be simply stated as what "Farmers" received with no separate amount per commodity. On the other hand the U.S. Farm Bill support $$$$ is directed towards mostly grain farmers.

As a farmer i wish to inform you that in the last 20 years our farm corporation has never taken a handout through good times or bad.A crop insurance payout yes but other gifts no.

Eighteen days have passed since BF's posted this article on May 22, 2014. In that time interval, a total of 81 comments have been made by numerous people.

My original appeal to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Appeals Tribunal presented evidence on all of the wrongful acts of Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") and the chicken Supply Management system overall. While that comprehensive appeal was rejected by the Tribunal, the Tribunal invited me to re-file my appeal on the limited grounds of the 300 bird small flock exemption Regulation.

I have monitored all the comments made here, and attempted to respond, question, or defend the principles behind the appeal I filed with the Tribunal, complaining against the alleged illegal, negligent, and mis-guided actions of Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO").

After the ruling of the Tribunal was released, I asked for opinions on what should be done next (if anything). I received nothing but encouragement to continue. In spite of this encouragement, I do not look forward to another appeal, for I see it as sticking my head into the gaping jaws of a hungry lion.

Some comments made here were off topic, but most expressing worthy opinions on this important issue.

The debates held here have assisted me in considering and preparing the necessary arguments and reasons as to whether a renewed appeal should be made.

In my opinion, there have been no arguments presented here that have persuaded me to change or abandon my principles and logic behind the original appeal.

I thank everybody for your input, and for providing me the ability to defend, practice, and hone my skills and persuasive arguments.

In spite of my reluctance and reservations, I believe that re-filing my appeal must be done for the greater good of all.

I therefore hereby announce that I will be re-filing my appeal within the 60 days allowed by the Tribunal. I have already started re-drafting the Notice of Appeal this weekend. When the draft is ready, I will post it on SFPFC's Blog for review and comments before the final version is submitted to the Tribunal.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada ("SFPFC")

Is that you and your one chicken or you and your six $2 members renewing "our" appeal?

Eighteen days have passed since BF's posted this article on May 22, 2014. In that time interval, a total of 81 comments have been made by numerous people.

My original appeal to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Appeals Tribunal presented evidence on all of the wrongful acts of Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") and the chicken Supply Management system overall. While that comprehensive appeal was rejected by the Tribunal, the Tribunal invited me to re-file my appeal on the limited grounds of the 300 bird small flock exemption Regulation.

I have monitored all the comments made here, and attempted to respond, question, or defend the principles behind the appeal I filed with the Tribunal, complaining against the alleged illegal, negligent, and mis-guided actions of Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO").

After the ruling of the Tribunal was released, I asked for opinions on what should be done next (if anything). I received nothing but encouragement to continue. In spite of this encouragement, I do not look forward to another appeal, for I see it as sticking my head into the gaping jaws of a hungry lion.

Some comments made here were off topic, but most expressing worthy opinions on this important issue.

The debates held here have assisted me in considering and preparing the necessary arguments and reasons as to whether a renewed appeal should be made.

In my opinion, there have been no arguments presented here that have persuaded me to change or abandon my principles and logic behind the original appeal.

I thank everybody for your input, and for providing me the ability to defend, practice, and hone my skills and persuasive arguments.

In spite of my reluctance and reservations, I believe that re-filing my appeal must be done for the greater good of all.

I therefore hereby announce that I will be re-filing my appeal within the 60 days allowed by the Tribunal. I have already started re-drafting the Notice of Appeal this weekend. When the draft is ready, I will post it on SFPFC's Blog for review and comments before the final version is submitted to the Tribunal.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada ("SFPFC")

just wondering if Mr Black applied for this generous program offer that has been made by CFO?

just wondering if all the posters who were demanding CFO to increase their 300 to 2000 birds applied for this generous Artisan Chicken Program.

Did Mr Black, McGivern and all the others get onboard?

Stan H

Once I had received notice of CFO's Artisanal Chicken program, I skimmed the available info, and learned that it was on a "first come, first served" basis. So that I did not receive an advantage over others, I immediately sent an email notice to all other Small Flockers and other interested parties, so that I would have no advantage over them. I then set out to study all the available information, and decide if I would apply personally for Artisanal Chicken.

The more I read CFO's info, the more concerned I became. CFO seems to have many holes, ambiguities, backdoors, escape hatches, and smoke & mirrors inserted into the Artisanal Chicken program. There seems to be no guarantees for prospective Artisanal Chicken farmers. CFO has all of the power, can change the rules without notice, rhyme or reason. CFO is in an obvious conflict of interest with the rights and interests of Artisanal Chicken farmers.

Perhaps all of the problems in the draft policy for Artisanal Chicken are just a symptom of CFO's haste to draft this new program, or the one sided exuberance of CFO's lawyer's to 100% protect CFO's interest no matter what happens, or how CFO may change its mind in the future.

Equally well, there are significant question marks about the future of the Small Flock Exemption (now called "Family Food" program). Will it still exist the same as before, with just a title change? Again, no answers nor guarantees from CFO.

In the worst case scenario, as poor as Small Flock exemption is today (equivalent of swampy moose pasture in real estate terms), perhaps Small Flockers are forced to jump from the swampy moose pasture to an alligator infested swamp called "Artisanal Chicken" because the moose pasture, as bad as it was, no longer exists. We just don't know.

On 2015-09-03 I submitted to CFO, OFPMC, and Ag Canada a list of 10 questions about the Artisanal Chicken program (see )

Sustain Ontario also submitted a list of questions of Aug. 6 2015. CFO committed to answer Sustain Ontario's questions, but a month later, not one answer from CFO. If CFO doesn't answer the soft lob ball (maybe kiddie T-ball ?) questions from Sustain Ontario, I doubt CFO will answer the harder, faster, more dangerous questions pitched at them by Small Flockers.

In spite of all the above, I decided for myself, "nothing ventured, nothing gained", and "Hope for the best, and plan for the worst". I made an application for Artisanal Chicken, assuming I can abandon that application at any time if CFO fails to answer the questions posed, or the answers confirm our fears.

Glenn Black, President
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

well I am glad that you did apply for the program after all the talk about wanting to raise more birds. Now you have your chance to raise 3000 for your monopoly .of customers in Northern Ontario......good luck have a chance to operate a real farm business...keep us posted

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.