Some substantial reading

[grassfarmer]

Except it is not negative today, Darrin repeats over and over that it is positive 5%.....

Neither of us know if net farm income is negative for 2019. It may be as it was in the 2-3 year period shown on the diagram. Negative net farm income across the industry - that is a farm income crisis by any measure. The 5% that Darrin quotes in the text immediately under the diagram is the % of gross revenue that the farmer retains - that is not the same as saying net farm income is a +5%.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I doubt that there is much support for limiting production in many other commodities.

Then why did you bring it up as your first solution to all the issues in the report? Is there any other commodity that we currently export that no one else in the world could provide cheaper if we converted it to SM? Are there any commodities which we consume entirely within the country which could benefit? Without looking up the data, I'm suspecting possibly cannabis might be a candidate, certainly none of the main field crops, or livestock without feathers.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Neither of us know if net farm income is negative for 2019. It may be as it was in the 2-3 year period shown on the diagram. Negative net farm income across the industry - that is a farm income crisis by any measure. The 5% that Darrin quotes in the text immediately under the diagram is the % of gross revenue that the farmer retains - that is not the same as saying net farm income is a +5%.

No, it isn't, because the numbers do not include program payments. Also, if you follow the references to the statscan tables he provides, it does break down what is and isn't included. And the only income included is Crop receipts and Livestock and livestock product receipts.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3210004501 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3210004501
So that is not inclusive of custom work, oil, gas, aggregate lease revenue, rental revenue, etc. But expenses related to those activities would be included in the expenses put towards net income calculations. Here, land prices include a premium for the lease revenue for example, or what portion of fuel, repairs and depreciation are for custom work?

So after much manipulation of the data, he arrived at the 5%, and shows some years being negative, but if you go back to statistics Canada data that he started with, no years are negative(although it was very close in 2006), and the average is much higher than 5% ( I didn't work it out yet).

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3210005201#timeframe https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3210005201#timeframe

I tried to find how they treat corporations without success. An increasing number of profitable farms are incorporated(no point in incorporating if not profitable), and the farmer is paid in various creative ways that become expenses to the corp. The farm could show no net income, but the farmer doing very well, or vice versa, how is that captured?

He did a very simplistic analysis, with cherry picked data, with a predetermined outcome. That doesn't make it a crisis.

That makes it a solution looking for a problem.

[chuckChuck]

Then why did you bring it up as your first solution to all the issues in the report? Is there any other commodity that we currently export that no one else in the world could provide cheaper if we converted it to SM? Are there any commodities which we consume entirely within the country which could benefit? Without looking up the data, I'm suspecting possibly cannabis might be a candidate, certainly none of the main field crops, or livestock without feathers.

I didn't bring it up as a solution only as an option we already use to show that farmers can unite and work together.

Why don't you call the supply managed farmers "socialists" with their state run marketing boards and regulations? And Andrew Scheer who was elected leader based on Quebec dairy farmers support? He must be a socialist too! LOL

Its you favorite catch all phrase! You use when it its not accurate and then not use it when it is accurate! Try to figure this out.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I didn't bring it up as a solution only as an option we already use to show that farmers can unite and work together.

Why don't you call the supply managed farmers "socialists" with their state run marketing boards and regulations? And Andrew Scheer who was elected leader based on Quebec dairy farmers support? He must be a socialist too! LOL

Its you favorite catch all phrase! You use when it its not accurate and then not use it when it is accurate! Try to figure this out.

We were trying to keep this as a productive civil conversation about how to improve agriculture, and discussing if there really is a crisis to start with. I politely asked you in which sectors SM could be a potential solution, and even offered a suggestion, never said anything negative about the existing SM sectors, which are working very well for supplying the domestic market at fair prices for all parties. Not sure why that necessitated the preceding rant about socialism. If you do a search of the thread, Bucket warned you that you might get called a Socialist, and you have used the term multiple times since then, not me.

Do you have any insights to offer on the farm income crisis, or if it is a crisis, or the solutions offered in the NFU paper?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Grassfarmer, to be fair, just because I don't agree that farm income is in a crisis, doesn't mean that I don't think that there is room for improvement, and that is why I really do appreciate you posting this and offering solutions. That is a very pleasant change from the constant whining on Agriville.

And after all of the discussions about the west's financial situation I have been having with Chuck and others, where I keep pointing out that it isn't about how bad it is, but about how good it could and should be, it would be hypocritical of me to not take the same stance on Agriculture. Of course it can always be better, and we need to look for ways to improve.

On that note, I agree that there likely are opportunities for farmers to capture more of the margins that our input suppliers, and commodity purchasers, processors, exporters and transportation sector, etc., currently enjoy. That either requires cooperation, or government intervention(gasp).

In this era, there are massive opportunities to pursue some version of sustainable production, with organized marketing of a differentiable product on both the local and world marketplace, instead of raw bulk commodities competing with the lowest cost producers in the world. Ideally I'd like to see that as a made in Canada( or whatever region we end up devolving into), solution, based on actual science and genuine sustainable practices, not the arbitrary, unsustainable system that is the current organic regime.

If I thought there were a viable path back to 1950, with a mixed family farm on every quarter section(minus all the back breaking hard work, and lack of modern conveniences), all profitable, sustainable, and still able to maintain our status as an export powerhouse, I would be all for it. But I don't see that happening in the bulk commodities business.

And as for uniting farmers, all you need to do is look at this site to see how futile that will be. On a daily basis we are reminded that it is, Grain farmers against livestock farmers, and Supply Managed farmers against open market farmers, and CWB supporters against free market supporters, and family farmers against BTO's, and BTO's against really big BTO's, and really big BTO's against the 100,000 acre farms, and western farmers against eastern, and everyone against Quebec, and Organic against chemical free, vs. conventional, and on and on and on. No wonder the government walks all over us(to say nothing of our foreign competitors, and agribusiness), and ignores our concerns, if we can't even present a united front from one size of producer to another, let alone all the other divisions.

Given the attitude of the overwhelming majority of farmers towards the climate crisis, offering a solution all tangled up together with climate, likely isn't the best place to start uniting them behind a common cause.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

One can probably look at the number of unique posters on this thread as in indication of how many were turned off by both the climate message, and the organization behind the message, and therefore, the slim chance of uniting farmers to promote any of the solutions. And that is unfortunate, since it really is a conversation worth having. There really is no group who represents farmers in general.

[chuckChuck]

Grassfarmer, to be fair, just because I don't agree that farm income is in a crisis, doesn't mean that I don't think that there is room for improvement, and that is why I really do appreciate you posting this and offering solutions. That is a very pleasant change from the constant whining on Agriville.

And after all of the discussions about the west's financial situation I have been having with Chuck and others, where I keep pointing out that it isn't about how bad it is, but about how good it could and should be, it would be hypocritical of me to not take the same stance on Agriculture. Of course it can always be better, and we need to look for ways to improve.

On that note, I agree that there likely are opportunities for farmers to capture more of the margins that our input suppliers, and commodity purchasers, processors, exporters and transportation sector, etc., currently enjoy. That either requires cooperation, or government intervention(gasp).

In this era, there are massive opportunities to pursue some version of sustainable production, with organized marketing of a differentiable product on both the local and world marketplace, instead of raw bulk commodities competing with the lowest cost producers in the world. Ideally I'd like to see that as a made in Canada( or whatever region we end up devolving into), solution, based on actual science and genuine sustainable practices, not the arbitrary, unsustainable system that is the current organic regime.

If I thought there were a viable path back to 1950, with a mixed family farm on every quarter section(minus all the back breaking hard work, and lack of modern conveniences), all profitable, sustainable, and still able to maintain our status as an export powerhouse, I would be all for it. But I don't see that happening in the bulk commodities business.

And as for uniting farmers, all you need to do is look at this site to see how futile that will be. On a daily basis we are reminded that it is, Grain farmers against livestock farmers, and Supply Managed farmers against open market farmers, and CWB supporters against free market supporters, and family farmers against BTO's, and BTO's against really big BTO's, and really big BTO's against the 100,000 acre farms, and western farmers against eastern, and everyone against Quebec, and Organic against chemical free, vs. conventional, and on and on and on. No wonder the government walks all over us(to say nothing of our foreign competitors, and agribusiness), and ignores our concerns, if we can't even present a united front from one size of producer to another, let alone all the other divisions.

Given the attitude of the overwhelming majority of farmers towards the climate crisis, offering a solution all tangled up together with climate, likely isn't the best place to start uniting them behind a common cause.

A lot of what you said seemed reasonable. And the reality is many farmers will never agree on anything.

But farmers are on the front line when it comes to the effects of climate change good or bad. So if bad persistent weather patterns starts to really cause a lot of increased risk, then climate change obviously has to be part of the safety nets and policy design.

And I don't want discuss the science of climate change again and again with you. Reasonable people know it is an issue that has to be taken into account and farmers need to do their part and lobby for programs that reward their BMPs when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I brought up the question of who you think is a socialist because you often label all people who disagree with you as a socialist. It's your go to label that really doesn't apply unless you are prepared to call supply managed farmers and their Conservative supporters socialists too!

Farmers receive taxpayers subsidies in Canada through various programs. Supply managed farmers receive enormous amounts of state protection.

So you can rant on about socialist this and that all you want, but it makes you look hypocritical.

Take my advice drop the labels, political rhetoric and personal attacks and focus on the issues.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A lot of what you said seemed reasonable. And the reality is many farmers will never agree on anything.

But farmers are on the front line when it comes to the effects of climate change good or bad. So if bad persistent weather patterns starts to really cause a lot of increased risk, then climate change obviously has to be part of the safety nets and policy design.

And I don't want discuss the science of climate change again and again with you. Reasonable people know it is an issue that has to be taken into account and farmers need to do their part and lobby for programs that reward their BMPs when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I brought up the question of who you think is a socialist because you often label all people who disagree with you as a socialist. It's your go to label that really doesn't apply unless you are prepared to call supply managed farmers and their Conservative supporters socialists too!

Farmers receive taxpayers subsidies in Canada through various programs. Supply managed farmers receive enormous amounts of state protection.

So you can rant on about socialist this and that all you want, but it makes you look hypocritical.

Take my advice drop the labels, political rhetoric and personal attacks and focus on the issues.

So now that you have gotten your post of political rhetoric and labels out of the way, can we get back to focusing on the issues?

As a member, or former member of farm groups, and CWB, What feedback do you have on the suggestions in the paper, you should have more insight than most on here?

Do you see an income crisis in agriculture, what about your own farm, does 5% profit margin sound accurate to your operation?

You brought up a genuine option of SM. Do you see any other commodities where it could be a solution? Or a two tiered market, with domestic and export at different prices, and all of the associated price controls and import restrictions that would entail?

It is interesting, and likely coincidental that the negative years portrayed on the graph, also align with the final years of the CWB, with profit margins being well above the 30 year average in the entire period since the dissolution of the CWB. What conclusions can we draw from that?