Organic Meadow’s unsecured creditors meet next week

© AgMedia Inc.

Comments

Agrifoods Cooperative is owned by Western Canadian dairy farmers, NOT by Saputo. Saputo purchased Dairyland from Agrifoods in 2001, but both companies continue to operate independently. Agrifoods has several subsidiaries that are well-known brands: http://www.agrifoods.ca/about/

I think the Organic Meadow situation is a rather sad one, it was co-op with huge potential but it never reached it potential, it always seemed to spend more money that it generated, it was never a lean operation, it was always over staffed and it always over spent.

In 25 years it never once hired a CEO with an ounce of previous work experience or knowledge of the dairy sector when you are paying and hiring some one for the most senior position in your company they should of had at least some experience in the dairy or beverage industry prior,

What Organic Meadow was always looking for a was Messiah to lead them out of the fiery pit of over spending and poor management, what they lacked was the ability to humble themselves and ability to be open and honest with their members.

to this day there are lost of Organic Meadow members I have spoken to who have no idea what is going, they said the Co-op has never called any emergence meetings or laid it all out for the members to see what is going on, most of know what they know from reading it in the farm publications, that is an injustice to it's members and the ideals of a co-op.

For the past 3 months all that we have heard in the media from Organic Meadow co-op is that this process will make them stronger, I am sure the creditors who are getting 0.07 cents on the dollar don't feel stronger, I am sure all the farmer investors who have lost their money don't feel stronger and I am sure all the members who paid thousands of dollars in memberships who fee are gone, don't feel stronger, So I would ask Organic Meadow how has this process made anyone or anything stronger as you have assured people it would over the past few months ?

I think if one took a look at their books over the past 25 years they would see that the co-op hadn't really been all that financially successful over the years, but with things being so convoluted, with money moving from Organic Meadow Co-op to Organic Meadow, to Organic Meadow Inc and back and forth that it was just a money shuffle that had been taking place.

I know the organic milk business is a viable business because for over a decade Harmony organic milk has been a mainstay in the market place, its a leanly operated company with no frills or fancy offices, they haven't blown through stacks of farmers money they have simply kept it simple, kept it profitable and kept them self's in business.

Organic Meadow can blame DFO for all their problems and that's how the die hard co-op members will remember this story, but factually the co-op will come to an end because of poor management and a lack of being able to humble themselves and be honest and forthright with their members and investors about how dire their situation actually was rather then continuing to reassure them every things going to be ok, just keep send your support money, this is why we will close the chapter on the Organic Meadow co-op not because of the DFO.

Sean McGivern

Everywhere else but in the Soviet-style central planning and control netherworld of supply management, Organic Meadows could have, and would have, been able to control the flow of their members' milk from farm to shelf.

The communistic single-desk marketing system utilized by supply management scuttled the ability of Organic Meadows to do what any other responsible business would have done, especially with a premium product like organic milk.

Blaming management and/or the Board of Directors is simply inventing scapegoats - the enemy is, and always was, the single-desk marketing system necessary to keep supply management afloat.

In this instance, I don't really care whether any organization with which I am affiliated agrees with my position - I have an MBA, they don't and this is my professional opinion.

Stephen Thompson, BSc(Agr), MBA, Clinton ON

Any one fool enough to belong to a co op that can't even get it's own members product deserves what they get .

In this case the board invented their own scapegoat but didn't realize it . Any board of directors which could not see the problem long before now was wearing rose colored SM glasses .
MTIMO,NEN

In this week's Ontario Farmer, Ian Cumming (this time wearing his reporter's hat) told of the trials and tribulations faced by award-winning cheesemaker, Margaret Morris, when trying to get her Glengarry Fine Cheese business started.

According to Cumming, a dairy official accused Morris of breaking the law when, as Morris recalls, she obtained "milk to make the cheese to make the product to apply for an innovative quota" so that she could sell the cheese.

Cumming goes on to report that when Morris won an innovative award at the January 2015 DFO banquet, "I saluted that son of a bitch at the head table," she said.

Finally, Cumming noted that Morris still seethes at the bullying of cars parked outside her house all those years as they did their best, "to shut me down."

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I don't agree with with Stephen's understanding of this situation, Because there are 2 organic centric milk companies in Ontario, Organic Meadow and Harmony Organic Milk, they both operate in the same system, one is highly successful and one is in bankruptcy protection.

Blaming DFO is Organic Meadow's escapegoat, or in this situation their escape cow.

Regardless of how much milk they had access to wouldn't compensate for their lack of poor management or over spending, if they had twice as much milk but still over spent the outcome would be the same, they never could humble themselves enjoy to run a lean operation and be content with a slow rise to becoming a silent giant, instead their ego got in the way from what I can read and hear from their members.

Sean McGivern

If not for supply management, Organic Meadow could have controlled its marketing channel from farm to shelf.

If not for supply management, Organic Meadow could have had access to more and cheaper milk produced by members who wouldn't have to mortgage their souls to buy quota to produce it - thereby allowing Organic Meadow to achieve optimal economies of scale in its production and marketing efforts.

As well, Mr. Mcgivern keeps ignoring that Organic Meadow went bankrupt only when it couldn't get access to enough milk to keep its plant viable, thereby dying from a gunshot to the head fired by DFO because of DFO's soviet-style "keep every processor equal and mediocre" policy, rather than from whatever chronic illness Organic Meadow may or may not have had.

Finally, comparing two companies on the most-cursory basis proves nothing except the fact that there are two companies. Nothing can be demonstrated without a full comparison of capital structure and other key indicators - Mr. McGivern should know this, yet he chooses to ignore it.

Stephen Thompson, BSc(Agr), MBA, Clinton ON

Anyone who has followed the Organic Meadow story, knows that things had never been all that great for them financially, but then things went horribly bad when they lost the contract to supply fluid milk to Loblaws, the largest retail account in the country.

I could be corrected on this but from what I understand is that when they had all the supply of organic milk prior to the sharing agreement the DFO imposed on all the organic milk suppliers a few years ago, that every week a portion of that milk was going into the conventional market.

If we didn't have supply management, we would without a doubt have scores of new dairy ventures popping up all over the place and that would dilute the market place again for the current companies, so by saying without supply management Organic Meadow would be successful isn't a reliable guesstimate in my opinion.

If you can't be successful in a protected market place, then its highly unlikely you'll be a success in the free market, race to the bottom, keep in mind i am not a supply management supporter.

Like I have said several times before, you have Harmony Organic Milk which is a highly successful independently owned dairy company ( former Organic Meadow farmers)and then you have Organic Meadow who isn't successful and they both operate in the same market place under the same regulations, I think it's an Apple to Apple comparison, you can't operate in a narrow margin market place with a big ego and a huge expense account....

Sean McGivern

Sean,
I'm not questioning your facts, and any board of directors that allows their ego or self importance to get in the way of serving their membership, has no business being directors.
However, from past experience, I think Thompson is correct. If the co-operative cannot make their own business decisions then it is going to cost them.
My experience is with the 3P cooperative that owns Conestoga Packers, and before the Ont Ag Minister took away their control over our hogs, it was costing us money and was a very cumbersome way of doing business...as you can imagine. At one point there was a threat to cut off the flow of hogs and shut Conestoga down...that must sound familiar since the milk board has done just that to an award winning cheese maker.
Could it be that you are both correct?
D. Linton

Just to be clear here. Are you saying that both co-ops are similar because both were asking for more generous credit terms?

If this sorry saga was to appear as a case study in a Business School:
(A) policy course
(B) marketing course

and it should, if for no other reason than to demonstrate the folly of going into business in a situation where you could be bankrupted by government (and/or quasi-government) policy rather than by business logistics, about 80% of the blame for the demise of Organic Meadows (OM) would be laid at the door of DFO, and the other 20% on the business policies of Organic Meadows.

OM probably didn't factor into its policies, and especially into its capital structure, the "wild-card" of dealing with illogical, irrational (and ultimately, un-reliable) suppliers like DFO who are welded more to communist policies than market-oriented ones.

Chobani "wised-up" to the folly of dealing with supply management before it invested in Canada at all - OM's critical mistake was that their farmer members allowed DFO to bully them into agreeing to pool their organic milk in the first place - thereby violating one of the soundest business principles - "Never allow yourself to be in a position where there is only one buyer for your product."

Stephen Thompson, BSc(Agr), MBA, Clinton ON

Canadian Council of Chief Executives head, John Manley, who is also a former federal Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister under Jean Chretien, hit the nail on the head when, in a late-July article in the Globe and Mail, he referred to supply management as "the last vestige of Soviet-style central planning on the planet".

Given this sort of withering condemnation from someone who, when he was a politician, vowed to defend supply management, it's hard to give the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) a "get-out-of-jail-free card" and equally-hard to condemn Organic Meadows for trying to be capitalist when dealing with the perfidity of single desk selling, the "jewel in the crown" of Soviet-style, supply management socialism.

It doesn't matter whether you're:

(A) a hog packing plant unable to get the premium pigs produced by your shareholders.
(B) the Organic Meadows (OM) milk processing plant unable to get the organic milk produced by their shareholders.
(C) aspiring specialty cheese-makers like Lancaster County's Margie Morris unable to legally get milk at all.

the common enemy is single-desk selling and the Soviet-style mentality behind it.

As for limitations in the abilities of Boards of Directors, Mr. McGivern seems to be missing the point that the winner of the "collective myopia" award, for over 40 years in a row, is, and has to be, the DFO Board for consistently implementing policies which serve nobody but existing quota owners.

As always John Manley's opinion and my opinion may not be shared by socialists and/or by any organization with which I am affiliated.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Is it DFO or DFC who should take the blame . SM is thrugh the whole Country not just a province . Same as why Quebec is and has always been able to have superior support programs for their farmers . Other Countries go ofter other Countries , not provinces . Hence the reason Ritz is right to not support the RMP but it is a sad excuse for the Province to not fund it 100% on it's own .

Now how do you know that Manley's opinion and yours too ( if indeed you do agree with Manley ) are not the same shared opinion of any organization with which you are affiliated . Have you stood up and asked the question ! ??

Comment modified by editor

When someone of John Manley's stature claims supply management is "the last vestige of Soviet-style central planning on the planet" it speaks volumes about what politicians really think of supply management, in spite of their increasingly-feeble protestations to the contrary.

It doesn't matter whether DFO or DFC is the bigger culprit - they're both guilty as Hell for holding consumers, farm organizations (with the notable exception of Ontario Pork) non-supply managed farmers and the entire country hostage.

As for me, I'm not affiliated with any organization that allows anonymous votes about anything - unfortunately, farm organizations, including the ones with which I am affiliated, don't fairly represent younger, non-supply managed farmers and/or even worse, they don't represent aspiring non-supply managed farmers who, because they aren't farmers (yet), aren't represented at all, by anyone, except possibly by me.

As near as I can tell, I believe I'm almost the only person speaking for non-supply managed farmers, and aspiring non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40 if for no other reason than because people from these two groups tell me all the time that I am.

The problem with all farm organizations is that they over-represent the last generation and ignore the next - however, the organizations with which I am affiliated are the best of a bad lot and I'm simply trying to balance the equation.

They may agree with me or not - I'm simply reporting what the younger generation is telling me.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Let's see if you have this right .
If your organization allows voting by clicker , would that not be an anonymous or secret vote ? The only time a vote is not considered a secret/anonymous vote is when a vote is called to be a recorded vote . So I call you on that one . I am not saying there is any thing wrong with using clickers as it does speed the voting process up . I have yet to see a vote where clickers are used where the name of the person and their vote are made public for all to see .

As for yourself being one of the only speaking for non SM and non SM aspiring under 40 , it has many times been that you tell old people what they like to hear . Others do speak out . You are not the only person as McGivern comes to mind .

Being affiliated with the best of the worst and thinking it is right and the best makes about as much sense as thinking that finishing second is better than all the other loosers behind you when it is 1st place in the list of loosers .

I am correct and know I am correct !

When a clicker can "stand up" and ask a question, the above poster might have a point, but until then, he/she, like all anonymous "smart-ass" and/or "So there" posters on this site, remains just that.

In addition, even though I've heard of looser-fitting clothing, I'm not sure what a "looser" is, but one definition in Google is that losers spell it "looser" - and that would appear to be a deliciously-ironic, and completely-appropriate descriptor of anonymous posters, particularly the above one.

Although any organization with which I am affiliated may not agree with me, the dictionary does.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Then why didn't Manley initiate something against SM when he was a MP of the governing party,instead of spouting off to a known anti-SM media outlet almost 15 years after being out of office? His words now are weightless!

When, in the late 1990s, Stephen Harper was President of the National Citizens Coalition, he didn't like supply management, calling it (quite-accurately since, after all, he is an economist) a "price-fixing cartel" but, as all politicians seem to do when faced by the bully-pulpit of Quebec dairy farmers, he developed amnesia.

And although as inconceivable as it may seem, there may actually be MPs who do support supply management when they take office (Wayne Easter, Paul Steckle and/or every member of the NDP caucus come to mind), but they're not normally considered to be cabinet material, and that's more than enough reason to dread the thought of even an NDP minority government.

John Manley developed the same selective amnesia during his time as a MP - however, I'd be willing to bet that, in his present role as head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, he's not likely to be pulling any punches about supply management in the same way Stephen Harper didn't pull any punches about supply management before he became Prime Minister.

More to the point, Bloomberg News just released an article - "40% of the world's economic output versus 12,000 dairy farmers" - and given that set of "metrics", why are Canadian farmers still trying to argue that what John Manley (or any supply management critic) is saying now is "weightless"?

And as for "dissing" the Globe and Mail for being a "known anti-SM media outlet", I invite anyone to name a pro-SM media outlet that isn't a wholly-owned propaganda rag for SM - there just simply aren't any.

My views may not be the views of any organization with which I am affiliated, but then again, I'm not sure either Bloomberg News or the Globe and Mail is widely-read by many farmers - too bad!

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The NDP do support and have stated that they will continue to support SM .
Liberals the same as NDP . So that leaves the rest of us in non SM agriculture to vote Conservative not only because of SM but also because of the party stance on environment and issues like neonics .

Every voter who wants TPP signed, and that includes:

(A) every hog and cattle farmer in Canada
(B) every Canadian with an interest in seeing trade increase
(C) every consumer who knows he/she is being hosed on dairy and poultry products
(D) every non-supply managed farmer under the age of 40 (and their parents)

is going to hold their nose at the Mike Duffy spectacle and vote Conservative because the Liberals and the NDP will continue to protect supply management, one because of tradition and the other because of a misguided sense of unionism.

If, God forbid, there is a minority Conservative government and the Liberals and NDP force Canada to walk away from TPP because of supply management, expect there to be an uprising by hog and cattle farmers, especially from Western Canada - it won't be pretty!

If, even worse, we get a minority NDP government, and with the help of the Liberals, Canada spurns TPP, or, even worse, gets Parliament to nullify, solely because of supply management, a TPP agreement signed by the Conservatives between now and October 19, expect serious calls for secession from Canada by western Canadians who really want the trade advantages that would emanate from TPP and who are fed up being dominated by fewer than 15,000 quota-owning aristocrats, almost all of them from Eastern Canada.

Unfortunately, it's going to be ugly no matter what TPP path any government chooses. Supply managed farmers are going to fight like cornered rats to keep their entitlements, but if TPP is snatched away from them at the 11th hour to appease supply management, hog and cattle farmers are going to do exactly the same thing and, really, who could blame them?

My views may not reflect the views of any organization with which I am affiliated, but they too will have to deal with rancor in their ranks.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Why would Beef and Pork producers vote Conservative ? Apparently COOL has cost those Agr-Industries millions of dollars and the Feds have been spinning their tires trying to fight it since 2008, of course 4 or 5 months before an election our Minister of Agriculture starts his plastic sabre rattling with big talk of Tarriffs.

Isen't that what Beef and Pork producers really want..an open border with the US so we can ship live animals down there and the Conservatives don't seem to be able to give that to them.

Beef and pork producers have, rightly, wrongly or otherwise, little option but to hold their noses and vote Conservative in the expectation that TPP will allow us to export to countries that don't have COOL - focusing on just trade with the US, important as it is, is like having blinders on a horse.

The only hope of signing TPP, and therefore allowing Canadian cattle and hog farmers access to 40% of the world's market instead of just the COOL-limited US market, rests with the Conservatives - the other two parties appear to be eager, for their own simplistic and opportunistic reasons, to let supply management thwart TPP, thereby leaving cattle and hog farmers to continue to contend with the financial bullying imposed on them by their supply managed neighbours as well as the continuing issues of COOL.

And, no, I'm not a member of any political party and have no intention of becoming a member of any and, as always, since my political views are based on economic principles rather than on expediency and/or populism, they might not be shared by any organization with which I am affiliated.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Limited US trade is all that will be had with the USA . Would think pork and beef would want more than that . The current Gov has used the tools that they have to stop COOL , all that was needed was to stand up and say hey that is not in the agreement . That they did and were proven right . The fact that the USA keeps going back and thinking they are going to bully Canada in a free trade agreement is wrong . For Canada to implement COOL here would also be wrong .
AS for it only being the last 4 or 5 months is simply be said from some one who has had their head in the sand . Things don't move fast and protocols must be followed .

What beef and pork farmers need are markets to fill with who ever or what ever country . The problem with farmers is that ask 10 of then what they want or need and you will likely get 15 different answers !

We do have country-of-origin-labeling in Canada - it's called supply management and it means that effectively all dairy and poultry products (with the exception of the almost $1 billion in annual imports of tariff-free milk protein products) sold in Canada are produced in Canada.

Therefore, as long as we defend supply management, when Canada castigates the US about COOL, it's little more than "people in glass houses throwing stones."

Naturally, my views may not be the view seen from inside the glass house(s) of any organization with which I may be affiliated.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

As per usual the SM hate comes out again when not even mentioned . COOL is not about milk but chicken yes . The US does not care about their dairy farmers since they really don't care about the export of those products and since their farmers are supported through their safety net progams . Pork and beef is where the money is at . That is why pork and beef farmers here in Canada get the most support dollars .

The COOL we have here is now in Ontario with pork .

Ah, yes, the dreamland-like trances of perpetual denial continue to reign supreme in the over-active imaginations of the anonymous occupiers of the back roads and concessions in Canada.

Canada continues to wither, squirm and bluster about the need to keep our borders closed to US dairy and poultry imports by the use of tariffs - why wouldn't (and/or why shouldn't?) the US respond by using non-tariff barriers to keep out our meats in an attempt to get us to come to our senses about the utter stupidity of our tariffs? Besides all that, US consumers, (and even Canadian shopping for meats when visiting relatives in the US) like COOL, so why can't, and/or why shouldn't, the US try to give their consumers, and Canadian visitors, what they want?

More to the point, what is so different about our wretched "Blue Cow" label and a label on a package of meat in a US store saying "Born in the US, raised in the US, harvested in the US"?

In addition, even though Ian Cumming points out, virtually every week in his column in the Ontario Farmer, that his New York State dairy farm, with annual milk sales of about $1 million, received only about $18,000 in total in direct US government support during the past five years, and that was for a program for which he doesn't qualify any more, Canadian farmers, especially the anonymous ones on this site, continue to fall all over themselves in a fit of orgiastic exuberance to claim that US dairy farmers are subsidized effectively to the hilt.

And then Canadian dairy and poultry farmers still can't understand why Ontario Pork, at its 2013 annual general meeting, voted 68-13 to "urge government to place trade ahead of protectionism".

The organizations with which I am affiliated might not agree with my views, but I suggest there's a good chance Ontario Pork might.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The anti denial of the truth is so clear in your posting . US dairy farmers recieve dollars through indirect payments , through the US support programs that they funnel their payments through but you don't want to admit that .

The blue cow is for products produced with milk . Ice cream is made with milk . The other want to be ice cream products are called and labeled as frozen dessert . There is a real taste difference .

Ontario Pork might agree with you but OP is part of a bigger group ( OASC )that should have been part of the Ontario labeling scheme . Were the others not asked to participate ?

Further your glass house org that you represent and are a part of has not heard any thing from OP at all about their want to get rid of SM . By saying there is a chance that OP agrees with you does not give you , your endless rant about SM , OP or your glass house org any sort of credibility . Your saying there is a "chance" is not fact but is an ass covering exercise excuse .

Always taking exception to any thing that is posted here because it may not be exactly as you think only makes you a bigger part of the problem than you are the solution .

I challenge the above anonymous braggart/blowhard to name even one program by which "US dairy farmers receive dollars through indirect payments"

On the other hand, as Mr. Cumming points out, Canadian dairy farmers receive government subsidies for building barns, clearing land and tile draining in northern Ontario.

In addition, when it comes to comparing conveniently un-named US indirect payments from government and Canadian indirect payments from government, Canadian dairy farmers get subsidized crop insurance, they get matching government contributions if and/or when they enrol in AgriInvest, they get subsidies in the form of avoided cost benefits on their farm property taxes, they are subsidized by virtue of the lifetime capital gains exemption, they get low-cost farm plates for farm vehicles, they get fuel tax exemptions on diesel fuel, and their health care costs are a lot less than they would be in the US, just to name a few things.

Therefore, please, once and for all, cut the anonymous blowhard crap about US dairy farmers being indirectly subsidized by un-named programs and face the fact that Canadian dairy farmers, instead of receiving no government subsidies at all, receive a LOT of subsidies through programs I at least have the ethics to name.

When Canadian supply management supporters finally have the nerve/ability to compare all types of cross-border subsidies on a factual basis, instead of spouting DFO propaganda about real or imagined US subsidies and ignoring subsidies available in Canada, and can post their data over an actual signature, this site will be a much-better place than the anonymous supply management propaganda rag it is now.

As usual, my views may not be the views of any organization with which I am affiliated.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

A bit of of outside help for this string since this one is easy.

Not hard to find the 2013 Farm Subsidy Database online.

The database tracks $256 billion in US farm subsidies from commodity, crop insurance, and disaster programs and $39 billion in conservation payments paid between 1995 and 2012. The data is from the USDA.

Here are the figures for US dairy program subsidies from 1995-2012

Income Loss Contract Payment $3,298,209,788
Market Loss Assistance - Dairy $994,714,404
Milk Income Loss Transitional Payment $555,991,196
Dairy Ecomonic Loss Assistance Program $287,949,298
Milk Marketing Fees $171,578,059
Dairy Disaster Assistance $21,547,587
Dairy Indemnity   $4,483,710

Dairy Program Subsidies in the United States totaled $5.3 billion from 1995-2012.

As usual, some people will have views and deny or exclude facts that don't support those views.

5.3 billion divided over 17 years comes out at 312 million per year average, then divide by for the population difference comes out at 31.2 million, or in other words-peanuts.
We must remember that in the US, this subsidy is paid by taxpayers, the richer among society, unlike in Canada where the bulk of the subsidy mandated by tariffs is disproportionately paid for by the poorest of society.
According to the OECD, a Canadian family of 4 would pay between 3-400 bucks over the market price for dairy. Therefore the yearly dairy subsidy tab here can be calculated conservatively at 5 million families of four, multiplied by 300 dollars per year.
1.5 billion

Raube Beuerman

Using a search engine does not make you an, expert does it?
However I read Ian Cumming's article...he is a US dairy farmer, so I guess he actually knows what he is talking about.
The US voluntary program (like crop insurance?) paid him an average of $3600 per year over the last five years on sales of one million per year...that would be the most recent 5 years.
I can't believe any one can call that a life saver.
The point being, an actual US dairy producer (Cumming) has not received any huge direct gov't payouts like we are led to believe.
All of the data that you present means what...that US pays out big bucks to dairy? How does it fit into the total budget? How much of the US dairy income is actually Gov't payments ? Do the programs from 17 years ago still exist? Over your 17 year time period and your numbers, dairy got a little more than .31 billion per year, divided over all the dairy producers in the US.
Keep shooting fish in a barrel because you really haven't produced anything useful that I can see.

Never claimed to be an expert - I leave that to others.

The challenge from Thompson was - "to name even one program by which "US dairy farmers receive dollars through indirect payments" "

The challenge was met simply by providing of the list of 7 US dairy 
subsidy programs. There was nothing else to prove.

So now you can not argue that US dairy farmers get payments . How big the payments are does not matter . Do you now want to argue the fact that US dairy farmers and Canadian dairy farmers can both have crop insurance ? You are not making any sense here .
You need to stick to what is fact and that is that Canadian SM farmers have an advantage over other Canadian farmers and US dairy farmers . Stick to one simple message but that is hard for many to do . By not doing that you leave yourself open to being the biggest fish in the barrel .

I think Mr. Cumming has been a critic of Supply Management and our Quota system far longer than he has been a US dairyman.
Ironic, because he used the money from said quota to buy his US dairy farm and much more.A critic till he cashed in.

You seem to be saying that Mr. Ian Cummings was simultaneously a SM dairy farmer and critic of Canada's SM Dairy System before he cashed out his SM dairy quota, then took the money & ran, and hasn't been heard from since.

If we are speaking about the same man, I believe he has had a number of editorials & Op. Ed. pieces in the Ontario Farmer, and had an OP.Ed. piece "Canada's Dumb Dairy Rules" in the Financial Post of 2015-08-26

This would tend to indicate that Mr. Cummings was a critic of SM from inside the system, and is still a critic from outside the SM system.

To me, it seems more honorable and courageous to point out the defects and dysfunctions of a system that can sometimes be more easily seem from the inside of a system, rather than continuing to collect the benefits and keeping quiet about the problems so those benefits continue to flow to you, in spite of the costs and risks to others.

To me, it also seems honest, honorable and courageous to realize when a dysfunctional and corrupt system is unwilling or unable to improve itself, and to realize when you can no longer stomach being associated with those terrible side effects.

Perhaps Mr. Cummings realized that no matter how strong and good a cucumber is, constant exposure to the system's vinegar will eventually pickle the best of the cucumbers when it is surrounded by that dysfunction and corruption 24-7-365, and is dependent upon that system for the cucumber's livelihood.

Glenn Black, President
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Ah yes, spoken like someone who has been a Canadian Dairyman for how long ?

The Canadian Dairy Industry has seen may changes over the years,many of those changes orchestrated by hard working dedicated individuals putting industry goals ahead of personal agenda's...Mr. Cumming is not one of those individuals and l think his cash-in move to the US proves that.

The thrust of the above thankfully-anonymous poster would seem to be that only someone who owns dairy quota is quailified to express an opinion about the Canadian dairy industry regardless of qualifications, experience or ability.

In addition, there is no connection whatsoever between being intelligent and being "hard working individuals putting industry goals ahead of personal agendas".

For example, the laziest person in the world can easily see that dumping 800,000 litres of skim milk into lagoons has nothing to do with:

(1) hard work on the part of anyone in the dairy industry
(2) dedication by anyone in the dairy industry
(3) putting industry goals ahead of the personal agenda of the unmitigated greed of quota owners

Penultimately, the above dutifully-anonymous poster fails to see that his/her daily "cash-in-move" on Canadian consumers is a far-greater demonstration of his/her personal greed than anything the poster wishes to ascribe to Mr. Cumming's decision to be part of the now almost $1 billion in duty-free imports of milk protein into Canada rather than continue to produce milk in Canada and be a victim of these imports.

Mr. Cumming, it would appear, simply got tired of being part of a system that screwed consumers and decided to take advantage of the collective greed of his fellow dairy farmers, sold his quota to the greedy fools, and is now able to sleep at night, knowing he is no longer:

(A) screwing consumers
(B) being a financial bully in his eastern-Ontario farm community.
(C) a ward of the state, completely dependent on supply management for his very existence, and correspondingly vulnerable

As always, my views may not be shared by any organization with which I am affiliated - some of them, go figure, seem to like being wards of the state.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

the fact of the matter is he sold his quota to start debt free in the US. if he had true integrity he would have given his quota back and started with debt. he s not in the system any more so stop complaining. now more that ever he would like to see our tarrifs gone to his benefit

Yes to your first point , yes to your second point and to point three he still is a critic but does not seem to sing praise for the US dairy system . Might be a case of the grass looks greener on the other side until you move there .
I do think he likely made the move because it seemed easier to help his son start into dairy . That you can not blame him for . If you think he cashed out and ran before quota values dropped , before quota may be gone in this country , he and any one else has the same opportunity .

I think what SM has to fear more than any thing the Feds could do is to fear that Wynne will do away with it in the province of Ontario !

UH OH !!! Looks like some one better call a Wambulance ! LOL

All jokes aside the truth of the matter is that even though US dairy farmers do get subsidies , it still does not mean that SM in Canada does not need an overhaul , should not be the bully in the room when it comes to trade with other countries . We are a trading nation rich in resources and agriculture .

Question then for Mr. Thompson is why are you allowing your glass house of representatives to continue to stonewall the rest of agriculture , make it next to impossible for young people to start farming and basically impossible when it comes to expansion and trade by supporting SM ? As said before you are part of the problem by sitting in the glass house .

The unfairness and illegality of COOL have been internationally recognized.
Decades ago pork and beef producers took a serious wrong turn with their marketing. As a result Ontario's beef processing went west, away from the population center. The larger result however was to make pork and beef producers increasingly hate supply management as they come to realise how profitable this has been for those who market this way and stable for consumers who benefit from a stable supply.

Yes Ontario pork producers recently got a taste of how much fun it is to go it alone when a large packer goes bankrupt. From what I can tell, producers fared the worst out of all creditors.

There are so many articles in various publications that we need to 'support our supply management system" that it is nauseating, then this anonymous clown claims that pork and beef farmers get the most support dollars.
I do not see pork and beef farmers rallying in Ottawa.
I see the dairy lobby rallying in Ottawa for 'support'.
This anonymous poster is arguing out of both sides of his/her mouth.
You can't have it both ways.

Raube Beuerman

The pork and beef associations trail along after the Feds on virtually every trade mission,they invented lobbying !

So you are saying that CPC does not lobby . I find that hard to believe . Why continue to pay checkoff dollars to them then ?
I guess the pork buy out program was the brain child of the Gov then .

It is very much nauseating to see all of the support SM ads and articles but then they have to fight to keep what they currently have and any SM farmer would . It is more nauseating to read the above posters claim that pork & beef don't lobby and don't get dollars . Who is pushing the Feds to fight COOL ? Hhmmm who lobbied to fight the corn contervail ? Could it be that the above poster is confused .

How can DFO be to blame. As is the case every winter, the supply of organic milk drops off when the cows first return to being in the barn and not on pasture. However, iif this alone was the cause of the bankruptcy why are all the organic companies not in the same situation. Obviously it is a management problem. The cost of manufacturing the litre of milk for the company should have decreased with the number of litres that were being processed.

With any board many times the executive director / manager gets blamed but the board of directors is the ultimate and are responsible period .

You can only blame the board members if the information they are given is complete and honest.

Well they still sold thru organic

Thank you so much for finally saying what has needed to be said.

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

It is difficult to obtain a premium price for a premium product, in this case organic milk, when the competing non-premium product is sold at a premium government/farmer set price.

Raube Beuerman

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
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.