Dairy Farmers of Ontario suspends new farmer quota applications

© AgMedia Inc.

Policy enabled one new producer each month to have priority access on the exchange for up to 35 kilograms of quota


Soon, hopefully soon, somebody at DFO will realize, and admit, that an industry wherein quota can be readily sold, but not bought, is an industry with a well-deserved death sentence.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Those of us who want to work hard and make the best life possible for ourselves, our family and our community will always find a way to do so, whether that is dairy farming or some other career. Those such as the writer above will always seek out a way to undermine proven methods such as supply management and offer ENDLESS advice on a vast array of topics they know little or nothing about. Let the writer from Clinton get up early seven days a week, 365 days a year and then tell the rest of us dairy farmers are not entitled to a decent living like everyone else. I am not a dairy farmer by the way but am smart enough to know a reliable and fair system when i see one.

I do get up seven days a week, 365 days a year, and have been doing so for close to 40 years because that's the only way I can compete with people with the benefits of 200% tariff barriers. There are two rules about complaining, my friend - when you receive the benefits of 200% tariff barriers, never complain about money to somebody who doesn't, and the second is don't ever think somebody isn't working flat-out to keep up to the people who, thanks to government entitlement, don't have to work flat-out.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Couldn't have said it better.
The whole quota system has created a landed aristocracy. The least the lucky few with quota could do is admit how much easier they have it. If that sounds harsh, then they should ask "what was the price of quota when it came out?" right it was $0. What's the price now? around $30,000/kg.
If this isn't ageism I don't know what is. And for all the people that quote about upset dairy farmers in other countries where supply management ended. Well yeah, duh, of course they're upset. But remember supply management increasingly favours the few over the many. How many dairy farmers were there in 1980? How many today?

You noted quite accurately that when quota (quota is merely a license with a quantitative value) was initially dispensed, it was had no value.


Because ....buried in our constitution there is a clause that states under certain circumstances licenses to trade shall be granted without 'fee or reward'.

Look it up yourself or better yet... ask CRA for the clause.

Licenses are security and securities are the jurisdiction of the Minister of Revenue...(formerly the Department of Inland Revenue).

It was our provincial government that assessed a value on quota against the expressed wishes of the farmers concerned. As a direct result, the government of Ontario 'rewarded' itself handsomely by 'capitalizing' agricultural licenses.

If you don't agree with the capitalization of agricultural licenses.... ask your MPP, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance why the Province saw fit in the first place to place a value on quota.

Then the government came along with a "valuation date" to entrench the capitalization of quota.

What the public needs is a really good discussion about the true nature of agricultural quotas....the BILLIONS of dollars the public received as a result of quota valuations the last 6 decades.

By all means.... start the public discussion. Do you honestly think the government will be quick to give up such a handsomely paying cash cow? (no pun intended)

joann vergeer

The only farmers that were concerned with the value being put on quotas were the ones with the intelligence equivalent to anyone with basic economic knowledge. It didn't seem to concern the rest of them which obviously is why we have this inevitable disaster on our hands now. According to my father who was a dairy farmer before I was born, it was the farmers who put a value on quota, not the government. Quotas were issued free based on a farmer's historic production. Supply mangagement could be referred to as the slowest moving train wreck in government legislated history. Therefore, when the government pulls the plug on supplymanagement it will be many farmers who will be out millions, not the government. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON

With all due respect Mr. Beurerman, there is evidence to the contrary about who place an assessed value on quota.... how, when and where. The Ontario Minister of Finance should be able to explain.

One needs an understanding how marketing licenses came about. Licenses to trade, under certain circumstances, is a 'right' attached to an existing production license. (in an prescribed area in Ontario/Quebec)

'Permanent' agricultural marketing licenses were granted in 1928 in Ontario hence ushering in the modernization of the quota system.

These licenses preceded the Natural Farm Marketing Act.

Agriculture and the attached licensing system is a very old and convoluted topic and a real public discussion is needed.

As for your analogy of a slow moving wreak.. I tend to agree.

When the federal government insisted on a "valuation date", it deepened the hole for Ontario. Whether a farmer received a license free or not, a value was placed on the quota by government decree.

It would appear there is approx. $45BILLION of quota on farmers' financial sheets.

If the government wipes all the quota off the sheets, the government that will have to deal with a one-time $45Billion capital loss.

There was a very valid reason why the Constitutional clause stated the marketing license had to be granted "without or reward".

The Province of Ontario created a monster with quota valuations and now must deal with the consequences at a time we can ill afford to.

That slow moving wreak will slam into Queens' Park.....and a thorough public discussion is really needed if the government hopes to lessen the coming derailment of their credit rating.

joann vergeer

Is that all of todays quota at current value or is that the total value of what every current sm farmer paid for their quota? For example, I know supply managed farmers who are still farming that paid less than $10 per bird which is now valued at approximately $135. So in my opinion that farmer should only be paid out a certain percentage of the $10, or maybe nothing at all for that matter if quota were to be dissolved. Even if his quota were worthless tommorrow he would continue to operate just fine, because the difference between what he paid and what he could get for it today is artificial value. Also, any quota increases/allotments should come right off the top of the total value because those were freebie handouts. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON

By definition, the $45 billion in estimated current quota value represents the net-present-value of the extra money supply managed farmers expect to gouge from consumers, entirely because supply management allows them to do so. Imagine the multiplier effect on our economy if this $45 billion was to be spent by consumers instead of being "dead money" hoarded by dairy and poultry farmers.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

When we started milking 30 + years ago the talk was quota going. Now some people talk quota is going. Talk 20 years from now likely be quota going. Let the milk board do their thing and if they want to control the people who milk cows so be it, if the other people want to milk without the board go to another country and milk cows. We retired and have a good life milking and not milking in Canada because the milk board was here.So enjoy Canada and its way of life.

You wouldn't be nearly so smug about things if the value of quota had gone to zero while you owned some. You also wouldn't be so smug if you were a 30-year-old non supply managed farmer trying to get started and having to bid against the purchasing power supply management gives to only the favoured few. You also wouldn't be so smug if you were a poor consumer and knew, thanks to the information revealed about a year ago by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, that you were paying almost 38% more for milk than US consumers.

You were lucky, period, and in no position to give advice, or tell people what to enjoy, based solely on your own good luck.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The US subsidizes their dairy industry very well so consumers pay one way or the other.

Instead of trying to destroy the dairy industry because they are doing well
why not do all you can to help all farmers receive fair payment for their products.

Divide and conquer has worked well for the government before. Farmers need to support each other to get fair payment for everyone.

I could have went onto beef, gardening or whatever , but I chose dairy . The young ones today can choose to pick whatever they want there is no law that says they have to dairy or pick a supply management career. They let ones into dairy if they are willing to try and lucky enoungh to get picked. The only thing I,M SAYING IS PICK WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IN LIFE THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE A LIVING AT IT AND WORK HARD AT IT AND HOPE FOR THE BEST,NOT EVERYONE CAN BE DAIRY FARMERS PERIOD.

What give you the sole one on giving advice to the people. We look at the prices in the states and they are just as high as they are here and we but all our dairy produce in Canada which is alot. If in Canada everyone was dairy farmers on a open market how much would they get paid for their milk. The big processors and the grocery chains would be making their large profits and they farmers would be slave labours.

When, just about a year ago, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, published data showing that Ontario consumers were paying almost 38% more for milk than Ontario consumers, and that the farm gate price of milk in Ontario was within pennies per liter of the US retail price, the theory about retail price equivalency between Canada and the US was proven, once and for all, to be a fallacy.

In addition, there is absolutely no basis either in fact, or in principle, to support the proposition that grocery chains and processors would make large profits on dairy and poultry products in the absence of supply management, or that farmers would be slave labourers.

For example, since processors and retailers don't make a lot of money on beef, pork, and produce, items which aren't under supply management, and which are all produced by farmers who aren't slave labourers, it is outright fear-mongering for anyone to suggest it would be any different for dairy and poultry if supply management was reformed, or ended.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I always thought it would be kool to have a John Deere dealership, or a couple McDonalds stores, but it seems there is a "quota" or "process" to go through to get? Maybe I could get a couple airport limos to supplement my income? (Seems there is a process there too) Maybe I could go to california and get enough "FREE QUOTA" FOR 50 COWS THERE! But someone there told me you need a couple thousand cows milking to stay in business there.
Maybe I'll just stay in Canada and put up with our supply management system. ((seems like the countries that "dumped it" like England.(where dairy farmer suicide jumped x100% after canning Quota), N.Z. (where you better be a member of "FONTERRA" to survive; AND Fonterra is investing in "under developed countries" to prop up their "ristourn" payments;) May be having 2nd thoughts; since the shelf prices of dairy didn't go down for long in either of those countries after deregulating quota.)
It might also be an idea to see how much "under and overe the table" subsidies are paid to the US dairy farmer. (once the consumer factors in the "extra taxes" they will pay to support the dairy producers in a "deregulated quota" country) These "non-subsidies" are now about 30 cents/ liter in the USA.
C.O.P. changes NOT; selling through a marketing board; OR direct to a Dairy.

Read the article in Ontario Farmer Rows and Columns on page 10 and 11 to get a summary on supply man. in Ontario compared to the rest of the world. Let everyone then decide which will fit better for the people of Ontario, farming and not.

just received email from DFO telling me I can never dairy farm in Ontario because my husband years ago used to produce. Nice to know the DFO is still living in the dark ages where a woman is still considered her husbands property. When are they going to update their polices to allow women to farm?
Dairy Farming is slowly having a slow death here.

Don't give up
Send your complaints to Geri Kamenz At OMAFRA

in 1968 we had around 174,000 dairy farms in Canada tday we have 12,000 dairy farms supply management didnt save the family farm ...

Sean McGivern

Given the steam-roller effect afforded by the income derived from 200% tariff barriers, supply management has been instrumental in destroying family farms in almost every rural community. When supply management drives the price of land into the stratosphere, aspiring non-supply managed farmers simply, and increasingly, "throw in the towel" - and, presto, another farmily farm bites the dust. Yessiree, Bob, supply management "works", but it works to lay waste to every other sector of agriculture.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Actually many farms in my area have been purchased by crop farmers With many yields now in the 190 -230 bushel for corn and 60 bushel beans that pays for the interest easily for 15-20,000 an acre land.Get with the times.
John Van Dyk

I heard a presentation by Ryan Parker, of Valco Consultants, yesterday. Valco is a land appraisal firm from London, and Parker showed land price trends in 2011, and 2012, for Huron, Perth, and Oxford Counties. He squarely laid the blame for land price increases in those counties on supply management - is yesterday enough "with the times" for you?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

There is a good way to become a passenger on another impending train wreck. (even if you are not a farmer for that matter) Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON

in the recent issue of ontario farmer ...a large organic poultry producer is looking for growers of 1000's of acres of organic grain to feed the flocks....the president of PFO is talking about his small farm operation 1000-2200 acres of organic land......his followers are mainly organic farmers ...here is an real opportunity to promote to his membership....oh but is his land certified???

Once again Mr.McGivern is using propaganda only using the how dairy farm numbers have changed without giving the numbers on beef or hog.
John Van Dyk

actually if you do a little reasearch of your own you will learn that the number of non supply managed farms are actually not declining at as fast a rate as the supply managed farms, Thats from Ag Canada's web site, but let me guess there not credible ??? The higher the price of quota has risen the fast the exit from supply management has occured, once again check Ag Canada's web site to view their graph.
John the more you talk the more you back your self into a corner, your rants just fuel our logic....

Sean McGivern

I beleive that a farmer that sells his quota should only be paid what he paid for it originally less depreciation (no appreciation). Make it available to whom ever wants to be a dairy farmer (not everyone want that type of life). This way perhaps a few more young people who are not connected to dairying might have a chance at it.

The old I believe speech ? There is only two ways and that,s destroy the whole system and let everyone fend for themselves , or start lowering the price on quota with a limit on size with a reduction in price they receive. What is wrong with some young one already in sm farming with their parents wanting to start at their own place as long as its not within a few mile of the home farm. Good point to have it available to whoever wants to sm farm. Lots of people want to sm farm because its great money plus they know around what they are going to receive every month, not this great price one year and great loss the next.

Why does it have to be a few miles away ? Why can it not be the farm next door ? If it has to be a few miles away then there will have to be two complete sets of equipment which would increase the cost . It is wrong to have guidelines that state you can not milk at two farms . Yet they let London Dairy operate as a central local with many different owners .

Can someone please tell me how much quota per cow and the cost of it.

Look in the papers or online real estate ads for ongoing dairy operations, take the total price of the farm quota included, then subtract workable acres valued at $8000, because that is all that land would be selling for if Canada did not have SM, then divide the remaining figure by the kilograms of quota on the farm and you will have your answer!! Raube Beuerman

From your numbers I would say that dairy operations are still lagging behind the pork guys for what they have and are currently paying for land in Huron and Perth Counties . So much for blaming SM for high land prices !

According to Ryan Parker of the London-based appraisal firm of Valco Consultants, their firm's studies show that supply management is the culprit behind high land prices in Huron, Perth, and Oxford counties - as if anyone could ever doubt it, and I mean, really, what is it about the absolute advantage coming from 200% tariff barriers available only to dairy and poultry farmers, that doesn't translate into financial bullying when it comes to buying farms?

In addition, here in the central part of Huron County, the bullying power of supply management is so-overpowering that the only way a non-supply managed farmer can buy a farm is if the vendor refuses to sell to supply management, and that, because supply management is so-widely detested in the mainstream farm community, does happen.

More to the point, anyone who believes supply management isn't the dominant force behind high land prices simply isn't dealing with reality.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

So you are prepared to sell your farm for $8,000.00 an acre . hhhmmmmm

This anonymous poster sarcastically uses $8000.00, which is a figure roughly half the going rate of today.
More to the point, the $8000.00 figure this person uses won't cashflow either,
<Comment modified by editor as per guidelines>
Raube Beuerman

Nothing like some one haveing a "cow" when you use their own number .

All I said is that $8000 would be the figure that land would be valued at without SM.
But it is still too high.
Today Potash corp fell by 6.5%, it now yields over 6%, which is a better return than almost any farm.
Not to mention, you'll pay less tax on dividend income than farming income.

Raube Beuerman

Yes and by using that figure you must be willing to sell your farm for $8000 an acre since that is all it is worth . I am sure any hog farmer would gladly pay you that much . Hog farmers in Perth have been known for years to go toe to toe with any SM farm when it comes to buying land . Actually there have been times when they have out bid SM farmers .

Fact is that at any time any one commodity can and will be the highest bidder .

What has been the common denominator in regards to the cost of owning a farm since the early eighties?
Falling interest rates.
The cost has gradually dropped for over thirty years.
We are now at an overnight lending rate of 1/2 percent.
Interest is tax deductible.
Principle is not.
Commodity prices are just OK, not low, but not high either.
Broiler quota has fallen from $141 to $120(biggest percentage fall ever I believe)
Plenty of younger farmers have to subsidize their farm with off-farm income, yes, even SM farmers.
The next 5 years will be very interesting to say the least.
I may be a buyer when the next farmland price correction happens.
Until then, I'll park any extra money I have in equities that offer a far-better return.
POT down another 4.7% today.
May initiate a position tomorrow.

Raube Beuerman

The above anonymous poster's "logic" is flawed because he/she assumes that every farm land owner is always willing to sell.

Even more convoluted than the above poster's logic was the logic of lending institutions when they abandoned the practice of lending on agricultural productive value.

Furthermore, Ryan Parker of Valco Consultants, a London-based appraisal firm, blames supply management for land price levels in Perth County, not hog farms - and since Parker isn't anonymous and since he has the data to support his views, he, not an anonymous poster with no data to support his/her opinions, is the credible source.

Sorry, anonymous poster, but "no name + no data = no credibility"

That's not my opinion, but reality that cannot be denied.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The above poster does not understand that for others they are only married to one thing . Every thing else has a price .
Now further to that some times selling land is
1) a joint decision
2) the right thing to do
3) a forced decision brought on by ones own actions

The above poster forgot his excuse with his signature again

Stephen please provide quote in the Perth county section of the report where he blames only SM for land price levels. Otherwise, we will consider your comments to have bogus credibility.

Ps. this is the 2014 report quote I have. "Perth County, like Huron, has very productive agricultural land and has a very strong livestock component with both dairy and swine being historically strong components." Note: Both dairy and swine.

At the Cargill fertilizer year-end wrap up meeting in, I believe, either 2011 or 2012, Parker stated to the people there that supply management was the culprit.

Nobody there had a bag over their head so we couldn't identify them, so the above poster must not have been there.

Get over it already, some hog farmers have done very well in spite of having to compete every day with dairy and poultry farmers, most have not and Parker's address to us at Holmesville squarely laid the blame on supply management.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

As you claim no proof of data or in this case no quote for 2011 or 2012 = unconfirmed information = zero credibility. Might also be selective cherry picked hearing as in only hearing half the message.

Until then everyone knows the credibility of the 2014 report quote trumps what you think you heard 4 years ago hands down! Furthermore, what may or may not have been stated in 2011 would be considered by most people to be trumped by what is said in the 2014 report.
Ps. this is the 2014 report quote I have. "Perth County, like Huron, has very productive agricultural land and has a very strong livestock component with both dairy and swine being historically strong components." Note: Both dairy and swine.

Is Parker a politician ? Sounds like his latest report while it does say SM also says livestock . Get over it you cherry picked and got caught .

While I didn't read Parker's report which, I suggest, he muted to not directly point the finger at supply management, he didn't pull any punches in his live performance.

I wasn't the only farmer at the meeting in Holmesville where Parker squarely laid the blame on supply management for being the dominant driver of land prices in Oxford, Perth and Huron Counties.

In a more-localized environment, I can't think of any hog operations in the west ward of Central Huron any larger than the "mom-and-pop" variety, and I can't think of any beef farms at all, yet chicken farmers here are so-fiercely competitive for land that it often gets sold for asking price the first day it is listed and some of these farmers get rather-snitty if they're not the first ones approached to make a bid and the farm gets sold to a chicken farmer from another municipality.

And, I mean, really, who but supply management is so-awash in cash every year and by being in supply management, so out-of-touch with economic reality, that they can afford, or even think about, price/earnings multiples in excess of 50/1?

And when it comes to "cherry-picking", posting anonymously is the epitome of "cherry-picking" because the poster, by being un-identifiable, deliberately negates all of his/her credibility.

Finally, I really wish anonymous posters could get past the urge to post nothing but "Aha" and/or "So-there" retorts and actually think about the message to which they are responding before they post their anonymous gibberish and drivel.

As usual, my opinions might not be shared by any organization with which I am affiliated, but any of their members who attended the same meeting with Ryan Parker as I did would agree with me completely.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Not reading the official report is very telling indeed.

I know what I heard, I reported it and signed my name - that makes me a credible witness unlike every anonymous, and therefore bogus, poster on this site.

The point is that I heard Ryan Parker say, in front of a room full of farmers, that supply management was driving land prices in Huron, Perth and Oxford counties - I don't much care what he wrote in a subsequent report which, in any event, appeared to neither confirm nor deny what he said at that meeting.

My credibility is not at issue - the fact of the matter is that in Huron, Perth and Oxford counties, supply management is keeping the next generation of farmers from getting started - that's not my opinion, it's the opinion of any number of aspiring young farmers who tell me that supply management is the Devil.

The longer anonymous posters on this site, and their ilk, keep splitting hairs in a misguided attempt to preserve protectionism, the greater the tragedy for agriculture if we miss an entire generation of farmers because supply management has bullied them right off the farm.

That is my opinion, I'm qualified to make it and I will.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Let's see now before I pee myself . You heard some thing . Others in the room could have just as easily heard the same thing and have a different take on it . More to the point
1) You are not as young as you used to be and farming was likely hard on your hearing .
2) Only you would think some one should be qualified to have an opinion .
3) Opinions are worth what you pay for them are they not ?
4) You forgot your execus/tag line , What does your excuse say ?
5) Seems your teaching skills have proven that it not so very good since you still have not made any stride in getting SM shut down and every party in the upcoming election will sing the praises of SM .

This is the 2014 report quote I have. "Perth County, like Huron, has very productive agricultural land and has a very strong livestock component with both dairy and swine being historically strong components." Note: Both dairy and swine.

While I understand the concept of "cherry-picking", I'm not sure what the above anonymous poster means by "cheery" picking, but regardless of grammar and/or inferential issues, he/she seems to be obsessed by the narrowest-possible interpretation of exactitude.

To that end, Parker's written 2014 report, since it omitted any mention of land purchases by poultry farmers, doesn't pass much of a reality test. To ignore poultry, but emphasize swine, just doesn't make sense.

In any event, and to perform a much-needed reality check, a roomful of farmers heard Parker say that supply management was the driver of land prices in Perth, Huron and Oxford. Therefore, it makes little sense for anonymous posters to try to suggest he didn't say it and/or that the real culprits are hog farmers.

Once again, the sad truth is that the longer we, as farmers, deny the role supply management continues to play in balkanizing the farm community and turning it into a caste system, the more-terrible a price the agricultural industry, and the people in it, are eventually going to have to pay.

While my opinions may not be shared by any organization with which I am affiliated, the younger members of these organizations definitely do share these opinions, and that's for them, and because of them, that I keep advancing them.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

LOL, no-one is saying "that the real culprits are hog farmers". However, all we are trying to convey is the simple fact that some hog farmers are equally as guilty as some dairy and poultry farmers at inflating land prices.

At one time, the Farm Credit Corporation lent up to 75% of the Agricultural Productive Value (APV) of farm land and buildings which, as a purely practical matter, meant about two-thirds of market value of the average farm.

The APV was determined using the income approach to value which is the third of the three processes used by appraisers to determine the value of property - the other two are market value, determined by the use of comparable sales data and replacement value (of more concern with commercial and multi-unit residential buildings).

By using any income approach to value "yardstick", the APV of farmland should be no more than $4,000 per acre - people paying more than that, and especially lenders loaning more than that, are in a game of "musical chairs".

The common denominators underlying all farm-land bubbles and all bubbles in general are the beliefs:

(1) this time it's different
(2) I can pay these prices because I'm smarter than everyone else
(3) long-term price/earnings multiples mean nothing

More to the point, we'll eventually get back to farm land being valued at 10 - 12 times rental values - we were there in 1972-1973 and again in 1985-1986. Most importantly, NOBODY in primary agriculture believed, in the frothy days of 1979, that the prices of 1985-1986 would ever happen - we're overdue for a correction, and when it happens, it will, as it always does, come as a surprise only to the victims.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Things are different now than they were 30 or more years ago .
Gas is not 50 cents a gallon .
Houses have gone up in value .
Wages are higher .
People who are not farmers are buying land and more of it .
Farms on average are bigger .
Farm values are higher same as every thing else .

Look into DFO's New Producer Program if your looking to start small.

The new entrant programs, especially in dairy, are almost criminal in that, assuming replacement dairy quota can be found at any price (or even exist at all) in the year when the loaned quota has to start being returned, the after-tax cash flow requirements are going to sink all but those operations with significant off-farm income.

Everyone I know with any sort of a finance background is appalled at the number of people actually considering new-entrant programs because it means just that many people who haven't done, and/or don't want to do, the cash flow projections from year 10 on.

The only purpose served by new entrant programs is to make those SM board members who don't understand anything about income statements and after-tax cash flow statements, feel good.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

This year

Also, can a new dairy farmer even buy quota, it's all so confusing on the websites.

I admire the raw milk farmers trying to sell raw milk with no quota. This group is making some progress in public support. The provincial milk marketing boards are good at convincing health officials the dangers of raw milk, and using this to shut these small operations down. Many of these raw milk farmers would love to be dairy farmers but cant afford the quota, selling raw milk seems like the only option to them. Someday I hope one of these small dairy farmers with no quota starts to pasteurize their milk and sells it for a fair price, I am sure the milk marketing boards will attempt to convince the health officials that this milk is not fit for human consumption and close this farming operation down. Perhaps a good public relations campaign by the non quota holding farmers could break the milk quota system in Canada. There are a lot a young dairy farmers have left for the U.S. and selling milk for less than $15.00 per hundred pounds south of the border. This quota system is an old boys club that needs to be ended. Think how many consumers cross the U.S. border to purchase milk. This take a lot of money out of the Canadian economy. If the milk were fairly priced many people would not bother to cross the border and spend their money. Keep up the fight.

A pasteurized cow share farm my keep the health officials happy with the safety of the milk. Would be interesting to see the legal approach the milk marketing boards would take to stop an operation like this and keep the public support.

Quota is expensive and hard to come by. However, milking your own cow and drink your Raw milk in Ontario or Canada is NOT illegal. It is only illegal to sell this raw milk.
Our farm milks Goats. We process the WHOLE milk on our farm and sell it to consumers ALL over the province. We do not have Quota, it is NOT expensive to do so and there is not as much "RED TAPE" as you are stating. The gov't is helpful (OMAFRA) and the gov't helps us to improve our facility in many ways through research and FREE consultations.

We could also process SHEEP, Water Buffalo and Cow Dairy from our Farm. And we do NOT need quota to do so. We just need to purchase the milk from DFO. And that is NO big deal either.

I am very confused on your comment and what you are insinuating.

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.