Listened to a podcast this past week about farmland ownership in Saskatchewan. Marvin Slingerland with MNP was on the podcast and said that 30% of producers in Saskatchewan had a claim with agristability from the 2024 growing season. He didn’t go into his number, but that seems awfully high?
-
-
Probably not. Of those enrolled.Last edited by blackpowder; Oct 25, 2025, 09:23. -
MNP essentially designed the program, and if you pay them to fill out the forms for you, can collect as well.Originally posted by jdg364 View Post
The guys higher up are as crooked as they come, with their fingers in just about every aspect of Ag policy. They are designing the programs that they can administer for a small fee. Now they have agronomic services that are needed for argi-invest. These guys are as crooked as SNC in the east. But thank our western governments for letting/asking for it to happen.Comment
-
I listened to that podcast as well and thought the number was exceptionally high.Originally posted by jdg364 View Post
He also said that land is still undervalued in SK. If what a friend tells me is true, land is the same price around Didsbury AB as my area of NE Sask. He gets the same or better yields most of the time, and he gets almost a dollar more a bushel on everything due to transportation. And we get this yahoo telling me a million dollars a quarter isn't enough.
I wonder if the agristability payment would be enough to make the payments on a million dollar quarter of land.Comment
-
It seems if you run enough companies off the same farm you can use them to work the system properly. There has been guys buying hayland and breaking it up to grow nothing for a couple years , working crop insurance and probably agristability as well through numbered companies.
Did the MNP guy say how their system works and how they work the numbers, their fee and how many companies are required for each farm?Last edited by bucket; Oct 26, 2025, 07:51.Comment
-
It is said that whenever the government is involved, the system becomes corrupted. There are always people trying to figure out a way to abuse the programs.Comment
-
Whether or not anyone is crooked.
The facts are. If you had stable production. Prices rose then fell. A 5 year average would reflect that. Nothing to predict or manipulate.Comment
-
The manipulation takes place in adding marginal acres to magnify your historic production. The corporation tries to mitigate some risk by using Olympic average. Say you had one particular year where you planted all your farm to specialty beans and you had a great yield and for some reason prices sky rocketed. That year would be excluded when calculating historic margin. Some applicants have a few or many operations associated with the home farm. Production manipulation is possible. The argument they use is no way I have anything to do with that farm. My farm had a crop failure but his had a bumper crop.Comment
-
Yes. The only way to stop that is similar to the permit book. Do away with it completely.
Like GRIP, FIDP, and NISA, I have one farm, one principal and one set of books. I don't know or care what others do. If it's from the government, buy it.Comment
-
How do you think the BTOs can afford to flip equipment and take lavish winter holidays. They get the same price for their grain as the next guy. They will never foreclose how much they get from govt programs.Comment
- Reply to this Thread
- Return to Topic List
Comment