RE: [Futurework] Why the farmers are not jolly

[Harry Pollard]

Ed,   I wonder how much of the farming change is stimulated by:   “How you gonna keep them down on the farm now that they’ve seen Paris?”   I’ve wondered at young people’s attitudes to the relatively little fun stuff in small and perhaps isolated communities (which I mostly like) when compared to the excitement of the city?   Note the rising age of those who stay.   Harry   ********************************* Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042 818 352-4141 *********************************     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 7:38 AM To: Futurework; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Why the farmers are not jolly   Listened to Rex Murphy’s Cross Country Checkup on the CBC last night. Much of the discussion concerned the squeeze average farmers are in. They are caught between having to buy seed, equipment and other supplies from large sellers and having to sell product to large buyers. They have no control over price. Eighty percent of the grain farmers produce is for the export market, where price is heavily influenced by the subsidies received by European and American producers. These are considerably higher than subsidies to Canadian farmers. Negotiations via the World Trade Organization have not been helpful to Canadian farmers, who lack the political power of the Americans and Europeans. Apart from large agribusinesses, two types of farms appear to remain financially viable. One farmer who called in sold a variety of produce directly to consumers via a roadside stand. He tailored his output to the needs and quality expectations of the people who bought from him. A number of other callers mentioned supply management. In Ontario, supply management means the following: The broiler hatching egg, chicken, eggs, dairy, flue-cured tobacco, and turkey industries in Ontario operate under supply-management systems. The production and marketing of these commodities are controlled through a quota system by their provincial commodity marketing boards. The boards inform individual producers of the volume of product they can produce and/or market in each production period. These boards also set or negotiate the minimum prices paid to producers by primary processors. Ontario's marketing boards are elected, controlled and financed by producers of the regulated commodities. (http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/farmproducts/factsheets/allocation.htm#introduction) In general, however, farming seems to be moving away from the family farm and perhaps toward large agribusinesses if not to oblivion. A number of interesting points made by callers seemed to highlight this, some rather startling if true. For example, it was said that Manitoba has lost about a third of its farmers over the past ten years and that the average age of farmers in Saskatchewan is sixty-five. Someone also mentioned that his rather large family farm had been bought by an agribusiness and completely mechanized. Sixteen people lost their jobs. So, where is it all heading? The family farm was in its heyday for two or three decades after World War II, when Europe was being rebuilt and Russia and China had to be fed. Since then, much of the world has become capable of feeding itself and the Canadian farmer has been pushed closer to the margin and even beyond it. In the US and Europe, farmers have substantial political power and are subsidized well beyond levels that Canada could support. Despite its self-image, Canada may no longer be a viable agricultural country, except for niche farmers supplying local markets and perhaps large, mechanized agribusinesses. Ed

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework