NFU crazy, or am I missing something?

[parsley]

Both large farmers and small farmers have a stake in policy.

Agriculture OWES them a say.

And any policy that doesn't consider the countless variations in kinds of farming, is not good policy.

Government is not there to favor a few, it is there to keep the playing field equal. Neither should government be there to hand out neverending tax dollars to biotech firms who's main interest in farmers is compiling farmer numbers to justify and government grants along with neverending and increasing checkoffs, and increasing marketing consolidation.

Shareholders want profit...they should put their money on the table.

Which reminds me of the Flax Commission. Why does firm...Viterra... have a SOLE seat of privilege on the Council...swaying policy? Are there no other companies in Canada who would like to sell flax? (I'll get back to it, though.)

Small farmers become large....Klause will, won't he. Large farmers become small...they decide to retire or let the kids take over, or sell or can't make a go of it.

The point is...governments listen to numbers, and rebel rousers. If the NFU are simply padding their numbers with stand-up GM petunia growers, who market 'flowered-vitamins', then give them ten points.

If they legitimately are considering startup farmers and small entities and make a home for them, give them ten points. I've read some of your comments about Klause and have concluded there are a lot of mean spirited roosters resentfull of the chicks breathing down your ruffled feathers; hardly a welcoming hand.

You really can't knock the NFU for doing their homework. They UNDERSTAND governement listens closely to numbers/votes. With regards to the CWB and NDP, they're both on the same page, aren't they?

The NFU also realize that they could suggest to their membership and followers, to ask for all checkoff refunds, which would leave a real hole in biotech funding. 10 points for that one? LOL Pars

[wd9]

The only ag policy we need is the certainty that food is safe for food feed and the environment.

The rest is just good old marketing.

BTW, a brilliant move on the part of the NFU. For pars, politcus connectus maximus. Sorry gusty, i agree with pars on this one even tho pars thinks i'm not.

[parsley]

My comment to you wd was regarding your offtopic reference to the video slamming organics. I reminded you, offtopic,that today's scientists will produce any science for cash.

I wasn't confused and neither were you. So quit trying to stir confusion in.

Being coldly clinical on both your best and worst days, you could hardly disagree with me on the central issue, now could you? LOL LOLOLOL Pars

[gustgd]

@parsley, next time you get writers block at 3 in the morning, you should break out the water colours, you'd finish more resolutions that way.

and since your into making up scenarios I noticed you never put in any Toronto chicken tractors and called them farmers, or maybe the pigeon king might qualify?
We're all in this togeather right?
I may be wrong but,NOT everyone who grows food is a farmer.
Maybe my 10k net number is high, but I still have a problem with the 10k gross to be called a farmer.

And your mixing up your posts. I never once made fun of Klause or any smaller farmer. and it was Tom4 who used the word "professional" I stick to farmer, and I include those jack of all trades that do all those little things to call themselves farmers.

I twist wrenches but wouldn't call myself a mechanic. I walk crops but could not call myself an agrologist. I play a pretty mean guitar hero but can't say I'm in a band............. but we've had this discussion already haven't we.
Words mean something and when groups change definitions to suit their agenda's, be ready for a fight when they expropriate Farmer

[wd9]

It is not off topic. Many urban farmers utilize organics as their major marketing focus. Marketing in bold. Did any of that "scientific" information impact organics? No.

The same thing the NFU is doing here. Positioning themselves in the marketplace (ag policy) to encompass a larger market (government and media) taking away from WCWG and GGC. Its brilliant.

So in answer to the posted question you are absolutely missing something.

[wd9]

What is off topic is SW being elected to the CWB. Speaks volumes BTW. At least in the little tiny circle i know.

[parsley]

1. I responded posted Dec 29, 2010 21:44 to grassy saying: Some drool over the vision there should be a couple of hundred "professional farmers "
I said "some drool".
I did not say gusty drools.
( But since you mentioned it......I wonder.....)

2. In response to jensend, posted Dec 30, 2010 11:33, ". I've read some of your comments about Klause and have concluded there are a lot of mean spirited roosters resentfull of the chicks breathing down your ruffled feathers"
Nothing that indicates this comment was directed at you gusty. fyreference, it wasn't.

3. I will admit to bias for Toronto chickens farmers though. LOL My daughter has a designer chicken coop with real hens laying eggs every day in her back yard overlooking the park. Are you claiming she is not a farmer? LOLOLOLOLOL.

4. 10K gross has already been decided. Get over it,

5. You should know by now, I will have a writing block only the moment after you have a cropgrowing block. LOL

6. I didn't mix up my posts, gusty. Regretfully, you mixed up the Chair's reasoning/diplomacy from the getgo-Topic. Pars

[grassfarmer]

The impressiveness of "biggness" is such an Alberta redneck hang-up shaney. The cattle feeding industry is a prime example. Can Fax Trends profit/loss data from 1979-2002 shows an average net loss over that 20 year period of $4.85 per animal. Maybe we should consider net profit rather than gross output before deciding who is or isn't a farmer?

[parsley]

And you are correct about 21:44 gusty, I went back and re-read, and I am wrong... it was in response to your post. But I did say "some".

Chalk it up to the part of the novel that I am presently writing that has me distracted....... lol Pars

[parsley]

And you are correct about 21:44 gusty, I went back and re-read, and I am wrong... it was in response to your post. But I did say "some".

Chalk it up to the part of the novel that I am presently writing that has me distracted....... lol Pars

[parsley]

And you are correct about 21:44 gusty, I went back and re-read, and I am wrong... it was in response to your post. But I did say "some".

Chalk it up to the part of the novel that I am presently writing that has me distracted....... lol Pars

[parsley]

And you are correct about 21:44 gusty, I went back and re-read, and I am wrong... it was in response to your post. But I did say "some".

Chalk it up to the part of the novel that I am presently writing that has me distracted....... lol Pars

[parsley]

wd, I'll give you a 9/10 for that rebut.

But, you really can't expect me to swallow most of today's science, do you, because if I say yes, I'll for sure have to accept a certain farm organization scientifically gauged 'crazy' at some point down the road. LOL Pars.