It’s a delicate balance between doing what makes scientific sense, on the one hand, and a consumer base that doesn’t seem to want to listen on the other, with a mainstream media sector in the middle that seldom conveys the complete picture of modern agriculture.

Still, the need to drive forward with initiatives that show farmers and stakeholders operating above board and creating greater transparency has never been greater.

That’s the backdrop for the new Ontario 4R Certification program, which will be implemented among agri-retailers this fall. The program actually has two primary components. A national program boasts participation from all provinces except British Columbia, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, is voluntary for implementation among agri-retailers, and carries more of a pledge or attestation to show compliance. (Fertilizer Canada announced near the end of August that Quebec had joined the national program.)

The second is the voluntary Ontario program, which is far more focused with 37 standards addressed by third-party audit and written documentation to prove compliance. The goal is to have 20 locations audited by the end of 2018.

The 4R Ontario program comes through a memorandum of co-operation (MOC) between Fertilizer Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and the Ontario Agri Business Association (OABA). The Grain Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario are also involved, as are Conservation Ontario, the Nature Conservancy (Ohio), the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), the Ontario Certified Crop Advisor (CCA-Ont) board and Ontario agri-retailers.

Interestingly, the Ontario standards come from those developed by the Nature Stewardship Council in Ohio, where the group developed its own proactive guidelines to avoid state legislation and restrictions being applied from outside of agriculture. That might be one of the larger incentives for implementing such a plan, i.e. being proactive and showing the non-farming public that agriculture is accountable and transparent.

For Dave Buttenham, the 4R certification program for retailers creates a framework that not only helps convey that environmental stewardship approach, it can also help a grower’s bottom line.

“It’s a science-based approach that implements best management practices (BMPs) and it’s pretty straightforward — applying the right nutrient, in the right amount, at the right time and in the right place,” says Buttenham, chief executive officer of OABA. “There are both environmental and economic benefits of implementing 4R at the farm level, and the focus of what we’re doing is to address water quality issues arising from phosphorus loading in Lake Erie — that’s the focal point of bringing 4Rs to Ontario.”

Buttenham contends there is a value to be realized through proper placement and utilization of nutrients on Ontario soils.

“The bulk of the return on investment of 4R nutrient stewardship is going to be at the farm level,” he says. “However, to become 4R certified, an agri-retailer is going to have to invest in staff education and training, as well as documentation.”

Fertilizer Canada left individual provincial jurisdictions to implement the program that best suits them. For Ontario, a key consideration became the proximity of the Great Lakes and dealing with algal blooms.

“We had to up our game through more of a due diligence and accountability system,” Buttenham says. “It is very clear that through the audit process you will either fail or pass, and we believe that this approach is what’s needed in Ontario.”

The certification process is based on a retailer saying what they do, doing what they say, and having the paper to prove it. The return on investment comes from a retailer being a trusted supplier of products, knowledge and services to the farm community. When the farmer deals with a certified retailer, they’re dealing with someone who looks at both the environmental and economic aspects of nutrient application.

“4R best management practice can improve your bottom line — and for some growers it will,” says Buttenham.

Soil sampling a key

A focal point of the new certification program is soil sampling, admittedly a thorny issue for some. Among other conditions, the Ontario requirements stipulate that soil sample zones cannot be larger than 25 acres (something that most certified crop advisers state should be a standard anyway).

Other practices which will change — albeit slightly — will focus on fall applications of phosphorus, which will not be allowed without a living cover crop or wheat crop in place. Again, it’s not contrary to what most growers understand already, according to Steph Kowalski from the Agromart Group.

“The preferred phosphorus placement method is in the ground and GLASI (the Great Lakes Agriculture Stewardship Initiative) was pushing for that anyway,” says Kowalski, a CCA who’s based at Belton, Ont.

The notion that farmers have been doing many of the things set out in the directives is something that caught Kowalski’s eye from the beginning. Once the working group saw the regulations being developed by Ohio, its members quickly realized that much of Ontario agriculture is already carrying out many of the same practices. In many ways, it comes down to “telling the story” about what’s being done on a day-to-day basis, and being able to prove it.

Another audit requirement in Ontario calls for the co-ordination of fertilizer applications with weather forecasts to avoid field run-off following heavier rain events. Precision ag implementation is also part of the stewardship recommendation, as is calibrating spreaders and documenting that calibration.

“That’s something that’s the retailer’s cost anyway, so in terms of passing that on to the farmer, I don’t see it,” says Kowalski. “As a whole, it’s something that the retailer should have built into their business. But to be more proactive, there needs to be more messaging.”

Tell the story

That messaging aspect is also important to Mark Hunt. Like Kowalski, he believes much of what’s contained in the 4R BMPs is simple verification of what most farmers are doing on their fields.

“The 4R program is a step in the right direction to both demonstrate and allow non-agricultural people to understand how we produce the food that they eat and use in their daily life,” says Hunt, strategic account manager and CCA for Alliance Agri-Turf in Bolton, Ont. With his office on the edge of the town, he’s very aware of the balancing act needed in agriculture. “We’re not over-applying nutrients that can lead to environment problems, either; we’re applying nutrients that the crops need to grow. The three main pillars of 4R are related to the environment and the economic and social needs of farmers and everyday people.”

Hunt sees the Ontario program as a stepping stone. He knows there’s talk that the province is looking at regulating nutrient applications, and he believes agriculture in Ontario should have a system in place, ready to share with the government.

Times have changed, Hunt adds, and the eyes of the world really are upon everyone — not just agriculture. The use of smartphones to video incidents as well as satellite imagery available through the internet all heighten the possibility that farmers will be monitored. That’s where the 4R certification audits help shed more light on what agriculture does.

“That’s the right approach,” says Hunt. “People want to know and they do have the right to know where their food comes from. I don’t think any farmers are against due diligence measures, and nobody’s against showing people that what we’re doing is right.”

The post 4R comes to Ontario agri-retail appeared first on Country Guide.

Specific statutes vary from province to province, and links to relevant pieces of legislation can be found through the Canadian Agricultural Human Resources Council (CAHRC).

In Ontario, for example, all workplaces are required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act to have workplace violence and workplace harassment policies that target any kind of harassment and bullying. Businesses that don’t have policies can be ordered to make them, and fined for not having them.

Provincial human rights legislation also protects employees from discrimination and harassment based on sex or gender.

“If any person is subject to harassment in their job, they can go back to their employer and say ‘I’m being harassed. Help me.’” Knapp says. “There is no exemption for a family-run business like a farm.”

Knapp says employers should have a policy statement that states discrimination and harassment are not permitted in the workplace. Accompanying that policy should be a procedure that outlines step-by-step instructions if an incident has occurred. Who is responsible to receive complaints? What if the complaint is about that person — who is the alternate contact? What is the format to make a complaint? Most importantly, how is the complaint going to be investigated?

“By having policies and procedures in place, everyone knows what to do,” says Knapp. “The other important piece is training and documentation, which conveys to everyone the employer takes these things seriously.”

Knapp says in Ontario, a person who is being harassed has the option to bring an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). The person does not need to have lost employment to take this step, though Knapp admits it can make a situation awkward.

According to HRTO’s website, “The HRTO first offers parties the opportunity to settle the dispute through mediation. If the parties do not agree to mediation, or mediation does not resolve the application, the HRTO holds a hearing.”

“If you have an employer who has a known problematic employee and they have license to harass and sexually harass, that’s not fair,” Knapp says. “The other employees are left to either try to work elsewhere or to hold the employer accountable.”

Knapp says if she was advising a complainant, she would have a long talk about what they hoped to accomplish. If the employee has decided the workplace is too poisonous to continue working there, they may seek damages for lost wages as well as damages for discrimination. Often HRTO will order the workplace put human rights policies into place.

Knapp says it’s important to take the impact of sexual harassment seriously. It has taken effort to raise awareness among people who are not normally the target of that kind of treatment so they understand its impact.

“A lot of people have complicated pasts,” says Knapp. “We should never underestimate the impact our words and deeds have on others.”

Call it when you see it

You’re on the farm and someone makes an offensive joke or statement. What do you do?

Be ready, says Guelph-based lawyer Cherolyn Knapp. Whether you’re male or female, you may succeed with a response that is quick and to the point.

“Those of us who work in male-dominated fields know what it feels like to walk into a meeting and brace for the next awful comment,” Knapp says. “Unfortunately, we’re so uncomfortable when it happens that we’re wracking our brain to crawl out of a hole to get out of the situation.”

So, Knapp says she’s been practising naming harassment when she spots it in her own life, and addressing it directly: “Oh I see. You’re trying to sexualize me to put me off my guard.” Or “You’re suggesting I make the lunch because you’re intimidated by me in the boardroom.”

As a tactic, addressing behaviour before it escalates can be effective, says Debra Pretty-Straathof, a director on the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. She says over the years her experiences with male colleagues have ranged from benign to ridiculous. She has come to think of the men who serve on the board with as her brothers and uncles, and banter is part of being on the team.

Still, it’s strange how a comment like “Here comes our token woman” can affect not only your opinion of the person saying it, but it may have the effect of shifting the way you relate to your other male colleagues until you can shake it off. Sometimes that happens quickly but other times it sticks much longer.

“It’s not always black and white,” Pretty-Straathof says. “I usually shrug off something another person might take great offence to. I try to consider the source and the circumstances. Sometimes ‘That’s not appropriate’ is all it takes to wake someone up.”

“Sometimes all it takes is a little awareness.”

Pretty-Straathof recognizes not everyone has the confidence to speak up. She says it depends on where a person is in her life, and how she’s feeling about herself. But she says it’s important not to make excuses for anyone else’s behaviour.

In agriculture she’s had to address harassment with a peer only once in a serious way. “I pulled someone aside and said, ‘Look, you’re a good guy, but some of your inappropriate comments have been overheard, and that’s not going to help you any,’ and a light bulb came on,” she says. “He just didn’t realize how it would be perceived. I thought, ‘I could do this guy a favour and say something or I could let him sink.’ Sometimes a private conversation is all it takes.”

Pretty-Straathof notes it’s common for boards to take training to communicate with government representatives — why not work on developing tools to communicate with each other?

“I don’t think we have the language to address gender issues in a productive way,” she says. “A little coaching on how to address it calmly, how to communicate with each other as colleagues, might benefit a few people and save a lot of angst.”

The post What the law says about harassment appeared first on Country Guide.

The annual fee will be $225 plus HST for membership in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario or National Farmers Union-Ontario.

All registered farmers have to pay the annual fee to one of the organizations, although they can request exemption based on several criteria.

The fee is collected each year by Agricorp and remitted to one of the three accredited organizations.

“OFA thanks Minister Leal for championing this regulation change to support Ontario’s general farm organizations,” said Keith Currie, OFA president. “It’s been eight years since the last adjustment in FBR fees and the cost of doing business, working on behalf of farm members, continues to climb.”

The number of farmers also continues its long-term decline, which also decreases the revenue for farmer organizations which get fees per member, versus those which charge a checkoff per volume of farm production.

Increasing numbers of submissions to the Environmental Bill of Rights, advocacy needed on regulations like the recently proposed federal tax changes and continued need for on-the-ground support for farmers means there continues to be a significant need for the organization, Currie said.

— John Greig is a field editor for Glacier FarmMedia based at Ailsa Craig, Ont. Follow him at @jgreig on Twitter.

The post Ontario general farm organization fee increasing appeared first on Country Guide.

Ontario Federation of Agriculture President Keith Currie talks about why the OFA is putting more emphasis on distributed economic development.

• Read more: OFA pre-election policy targets broader economic development

The post VIDEO: OFA puts more focus on rural economic development appeared first on Country Guide.

The OFA talked about how it is framing its election strategy at its annual meeting, which ran Monday and Tuesday in Toronto.

“With the election coming up, we need to talk about the benefits we have to offer all Ontarians beyond the food on their tables,” OFA president Keith Currie said.

Rural issues don’t resonate with urban voters who are “food comfortable” and more worried about traffic congestion, housing prices and their jobs than about food.

As a result, the OFA is making the case that rural areas and farms can help them out. There are some rural areas with an out-migration of population leaving behind less expensive housing and employers starved for workers.

But in order to build stronger rural communities, the OFA argues government investment is needed in the rural infrastructure that benefits both farmers and non-farmers. Urban residents take infrastructure for granted that rural residents can’t access, including natural gas for heating and broadband internet.

Top of the rural infrastructure list for the OFA is bringing natural gas to more areas of the province. That would mean cheaper home heating for farmers and non-farm residents and more economical power for factories and farms.

They are calling the strategy “distributed economic development” — the idea that economic development in one region will benefit the whole province, including people who live in cities.

Dr. David Freshwater, a professor at University of Kentucky who grew up in the Niagara Peninsula, supported the OFA message on economic development in his talk at the OFA convention.

With farmers such a tiny proportion of the population, and most economic policy being determined in the cities, he said that for urban residents, there needs to be a message to the cities that shows the value of rural economic policy to them.

“You need to create a positive message of rural opportunity,” he said.

That’s why the OFA message focuses on investments, not bailouts, and communities instead of commodities.

Currie spoke little about risk management, or farm income, or farm production practices when discussing provincial election messaging, although OFA works on all of those policy items.

“We need something different. Something bold. Something that will survive the test of time. What message can we bring to urban voters that will resonate with them?” he said.

The OFA has polled urban residents to see what they’re concerns are about living in rural areas. Their largest issues include concerns about access to good jobs and health care, along with a perception that rural schools offer inferior education.

Currie was quick to point out that the OFA isn’t advocating for unchecked growth of rural communities, as many of them already have areas available for development, or redevelopment.

“A fundamental condition and prerequisite is that farmland is protected even better than it is. Urban communities must respect our boundaries.”

The positive message about rural and agriculture and driving economic growth is easier to create with Canadian agriculture being pegged as a potential leader in creating economic growth across the country by the Barton Report — a federal government report by an expert panel that is guiding federal economic policy.

With the production of more than 200 commodities, a quarter of Canada’s farmers and $1.4 billion in farm gate output each year, agriculture in Ontario can be an economic powerhouse, Currie said.

“When we hear Mr. Barton speak of limitless potential, we need to take a much bigger approach.”

— John Greig is a field editor for Glacier FarmMedia based at Ailsa Craig, Ont. Follow him at @jgreig on Twitter.

The post OFA pre-election policy targets broader economic development appeared first on Country Guide.

This new document will be immensely influential, defining how federal and provincial government ag spending will be allocated for the following five years.

And it will also be immensely complex. Not only will it set the terms for the government’s business risk management programs, it will also fund market and business development and innovation projects for farmers and the food and agriculture sector.

For the past two five-year cycles, the program has been called Growing Forward. That name will change for the next five-year plan.

Farm lobbyists are heading into the discussions with a clear new objective. Ron Bonnett, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, says the goal is to get governments (federal and provincial) to see agriculture as a strategic investment, “not as a hole to throw money into.”

Yet building resilience in a volatile industry is also an essential goal of farm organizations.

“That would go a long way in protecting us with business risk management,” says Dan Mazier, president of Keystone Agricultural Producers in Manitoba (KAP).

• Read more: What should be in the next Ag Policy Framework?

The overall package has created inequities in funding across industry sectors and jurisdictions. In some provinces, like Ontario, it is administered by the provincial government and organizations. In Manitoba, it is delivered by the federal government. Different provinces have different program success levels, and accessibility.

Those varying outcomes have resulted in different levels of consternation and affection across the country. But the largest request for the next APF is the same across the country.

Two Agri-Stability choices

Under the first Growing Forward, when a farmer’s current year program margin fell below 85 per cent of the farm’s reference margin, AgriStability helped cover the spread.

In the Growing Forward 2, the margin for the next five years was slashed to 70 per cent, greatly reducing the chances that grain farms in particular could ever get meaningful payouts

Now the question is: What will happen for the next five years?

Farm groups want more money injected into the program so the payouts would pump meaningful help to farms in need. Ottawa, meanwhile, is telling farmers: if they want more funding for AgriStability, they may have to accept cuts in other ag programs?

“People are frustrated with the AgriStability program,” says Bonnett. “It went from income stability to more of a disaster-type program.”

If your margin falls by 15 per cent, that’s a hit to your stability but it is manageable with some help. That’s how the first version of AgriStability was triggered.

More recently, the drop has had to be 30 per cent, Bonnett says. That’s a disaster, he says, and is usually created by unpredictable factors, like a drought, or an extraordinary collapse in the markets.

The current program is also more unpredictable due to its complex calculations of the reference margins. Accountants have been unable to predict when clients will qualify for the program, says Keith Degenhart, vice-president of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture (AFA).

“(Former Conservative Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Gerry) Ritz said he wanted it bankable and predictable, but it wasn’t,” said Mazier.

The program has been useful to some farm sectors, especially those with faster boom-and-bust cycles, and to producers who farm mainly one commodity.

Hog farmers, many of whom contract out their crop growing or rent their land, have one main source of income and therefore it is easier to qualify for an AgriStability payment.

In Alberta where rotations have tightened so farmers can plant canola more often, it can be helpful, says Lynn Jacobson, president of AFA.

But should Ottawa favour farms that are inherently less stable? Farms that have diversified have better ability to average out the ups and downs in markets or weather, but they are also less likely to trigger a payment than their less-diversified neighbours.

In Saskatchewan, Todd Lewis, president of the Agriculture Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS), says they surveyed their members in the summer, who said AgriStability and its large drop in value is their biggest concern with GF2.

“As a start, to get it back to the prior levels and trigger mechanisms would help,” Lewis says.

However, there’s not a lot of optimism that the levels will be restored to 85 per cent.

“I gather there is very little appetite for that by the government,” says Degenhart. But maybe the program could be incrementally improved, so farmers will re-enroll. That could include tinkering with expense criteria so that the program will actually pay out when farmers believe their income has fallen to 70 per cent of previous averages.

Mark Wales, an Ontario Federation of Agriculture board member and former president, still uses the AgriStability program as a horticulture producer. He’s also involved with national APF consultation through the Canadian Horticultural Council. He attended the November national consultation meetings and says the leading concern was about AgriStability.

“It works far less than it did, but it does work,” Wales says. “It’s not what it once was, but there are no other alternatives. You can’t go to your insurance company and buy such coverage.”

Wales says the government is hearing about the need to increase funding for AgriStability, or whatever it will be called in the new APF, but “then they say if you want to put more into AgriStability, where are you going to take it from?”

Governments have made no financial commitments yet to the next APF and until that is known, farm organizations are just making requests within unknown parameters.

Agri-Invest

The AgriInvest program — a partial replacement to the old Net Income Stabilization Program (NISA) — is relatively popular with farmers. The program is a savings program for managing small income declines and investing in risk-reducing activities on the farm. The government provides one per cent matching funding.

“It has worked out fairly well because it is predictable,” says Lewis, who farms grains and oilseeds near Gray, Sask. Banks recognize the funds saved in an AgriInvest fund.

Bonnett has used AgriInvest funds on his farm to increase tile drainage.

“We need to get farmers to think about that fund strategically,” he says.

Some are advocating for higher government matching funds, but some are concerned that if too many outside of agriculture knew about the program, it could be in jeopardy.

Mazier says that AgriStability and AgriInvest are programs that are relics of the old NISA-type policy. “We should throw them out and sit down as an industry and decide what is our need,” he says.

Risk and recovery

There are several other programs under the business risk management section of Growing Forward2 and, for the most part, farm organizations look for those programs to continue, with some tinkering.

Funding for crop insurance programs gets the most support. These programs have worked well, and have expanded across the country.

The AgriRisk program paid for research and projects that aimed to reduce risk for farmers.

The program has helped beef farmers in Alberta create risk insurance programs, for example.

“Beef has not been part of the AgriRisk portfolio for a long time,” says Degenhart. “They are now very positive about being part of AgriRisk.”

However, Wales says the program — which is aimed at farm organizations, not directly at growers — has been difficult to understand. The Canadian Horticulture Council is looking at what risk management programs could be created for horticulture producers in the event of a recall or a need to destroy product.

The consensus generally appears to be that the AgriRisk program has support.

Agri-Recovery

The AgriRecovery program was the portion of Growing Forward 2 intended to help in event of disasters. However, it has worked for some parts of the country and not for others.

On the Prairies, where weather events are widespread and devastating, the program has paid out more quickly and more broadly than in other areas.

In Ontario, Wales said the OFA is helping growers apply for help after the regional drought this past summer.

“It is a laborious process. It can take many, many months to trigger a program that has had limited benefits,” such as in the 2012 drought in Ontario. The only costs then awarded to livestock producers were to move breeding stock to where they could get more feed. Wales raises beef cows and calves as part of a diversified livestock and crops farming operation in southern and eastern Ontario.

A future AgriRecovery program should be more transparent, he says.

Mazier, in Manitoba, says the program does pay out well, but not if disasters occur in rapid succession. He points to floods in Manitoba in 2011. In the aftermath farmers got AgriRecovery funding. However, in 2014, some farmers were flooded in order to keep water away from urban areas during a second flood and they didn’t get support.

“It was absolutely ridiculous and I’m not happy with the hurt and what went on there,” he says.

All the rest

The business risk management portions of federal/provincial agriculture policy have taken up the vast majority of time, planning and words due to their critical nature, their complexity and the help they deliver to farms in times of crisis.

However, the innovation and market development parts of the policy are also critical and, as the industry has had fewer crises over the past five years, there has been more time to talk about those areas.

Bonnett said he was impressed that at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture board meeting in October, there was intense discussion about risk management programs, but there was more time spent on what strategic investments could be made through the program.

The amorphous non-BRM programs covered broad areas including research, innovation and climate change, and the priorities often were determined by province. More funding was switched to areas that would benefit all producers or a group of producers instead of one producer. Satisfaction with results often also varied by province.

Most provinces administer the GF2 programs, but some, like Manitoba, do not and there a producer has to go through the federal government to get funds.

Mazier says that there have been concerns about streamlining the process and actually finding someone to talk to about an application. “It has generally been very slow and cumbersome,” he says.

In Ontario, there was no communication about why a project was rejected.

“They need to make it clear and transparent about how I apply for something,” says Wales. “Nothing gets a producer as frustrated as when they are turned down and are not told why.”

Farmers will know broadly what the direction will be of the next federal-provincial policy framework for agriculture in July. More details will flow out over the rest the year. Farm organizations hope that they will know all the details by the fall, giving the industry time to gear up for the new program, so that there aren’t gaps in funding as one ends and another starts as there have been in the past.

The post Building a new Agriculture Policy Framework appeared first on Country Guide.

Currie emphasized the need for unity in the agriculture industry during his remarks before the vote.

It’s more important than ever for the agriculture industry to work together, he said, pointing to the ability of social media and other platforms that allow easy spread of anti-agriculture messages.

For example, there was friction between Grain Farmers of Ontario, the province’s largest commodity organization, and OFA due to disagreements on how to engage with the province on restrictions on the use of neonicotinoid insecticides.

“I worry that agriculture has built its own walls,” he said.

Currie runs a cash crop, sweet corn and forage operation near Collingwood, about 50 km west of Barrie, on an eighth-generation family farm. He was an OFA vice-president this past year. OFA presidents serve one-year terms, but often stand for re-election.

McCabe was running for his third term as president. The crop farmer from Inwood, about 50 km southeast of Sarnia, has worked hard to build government connections for farmers.

Provincial Environment and Climate Change Minister Glen Murray told the OFA annual meeting that McCabe has become one of the best-known voices on policy at Queen’s Park.

McCabe argued that he needed a third year as president in order for “all the pieces to come together”, including the upcoming federal-provincial policy framework.

Currie said in an interview he’s spent his adult life advocating for agriculture and taking on the OFA presidency was the next step.

“I’m a strong believer in what the OFA is and what it stands for and I was starting to see some fracturing in the agriculture community and I wanted to fix it,” he says. I want to lead the charge to bring the agriculture community back together.”

Currie pointed out that the industry in Ontario is huge, the largest industry, with more than 220 commodities produced.

“If we are collectively together, that ‘1.4 per cent of the population’ figure will be irrelevant because we will be too strong to stop. I want to head down that road as soon as we can.”

Current vice-president Peggy Brekveld was re-elected as vice-president, as was current board member Mark Reusser. A spot opened up when Currie was elected president and Brekveld, Reusser and Debra Pretty-Straathof all ran for the position.

Brekveld is a dairy farmer from Murillo, in northern Ontario; Reusser is a turkey farmer from Waterloo County.

A resolution from Wellington County to change how the president and vice-presidents are elected was defeated at the annual meeting. It sought to make the selection of president and vice-presidents the responsibility of the board of directors. They are currently elected by the about 300 delegates at the annual meeting.

There was concern from some delegates, such as Bev Hill from Huron County, that taking away the election of president and vice-president from the annual meeting would take power away from the grassroots of the organization.

“Not being able to participate reduces my motivation to come to this convention,” he said. “If I can’t participate in selection of leadership why would I come?”

Others, such as Sharon Weitzel from Perth County argue that most farm organizations have moved away from the direct election of president and vice-president and “it has been very successful for them.”

— John Greig is a field editor for Glacier FarmMedia based at Ailsa Craig, Ont. Follow him at @jgreig on Twitter.

The post OFA elects new president appeared first on Country Guide.

This time, farmers aren’t waiting around to find out how they can get involved.

A group of farmers in southwestern Ontario is getting in on the ground floor of a commercial-scale facility at Sarnia, Ont. that will convert corn stover into cellulosic sugar, which can then be used to make plastics, lubricants, paints and other bio-based products.

The new facility, to be operated by Comet Biorefining, is a win-win for farmers. That’s according to Dave Park, a Sarnia-area grower who is a director with the Grain Farmers of Ontario and president of the Cellulosic Sugar Producers Co-operative, formed two years ago to collaborate on the development of a sustainable agricultural biomass supply chain.

Creating a market for cornstalks will benefit farmers in two ways, says Park.

The first is agronomic. Corn stover has become a management challenge for farmers, especially with the bigger, tougher plants produced by today’s high-yield corn crops. Many farmers now find that because of the amount of crop residue after corn, it is difficult to get a good stand of soybeans the following year.

Farmers are having to use more tillage to manage the crop residue, says Park, but removing a portion of the corn stover from the field would make it easier for farmers to plant a subsequent crop and eliminate the need for extra tillage.

The second reason is business. Selling the corn crop residue would be an opportunity to boost income from the farm without having to increase the land base, Park says.

The Cellulosic Sugar Producers Co-oper­ative will be responsible for removing the corn crop residue, aggregating it at a central location and delivering it to the conveyor belt at the biomass plant, says Park.

Farmers would combine their corn crop as usual, with Park envisioning a two-pass system for the removal of the corn stover. First, a flail chopper would be used to cut the cornstalks. The chopper would be set high in order to leave 50 per cent of the crop residue in the field to maintain soil organic matter levels, he explains.

The second pass would be with the baler, after which bales will be stacked at the edge of the field until they can be transported to a central aggregation site.

The co-operative will ensure the bales are removed from the field by March 30 of the following year, and bale weights and moisture levels will be recorded at the central aggregation facility.

All of the farmers supplying corn crop residue will need to be members of the co-operative. This ensures that a consistent product is delivered to the conveyor belt and also gives farmers a voice at the table, says Park.

The co-operative will own a 40 per cent stake in the biorefinery, which means farmer members will also get “a portion of the value of the sugar coming out the other end,” says Park.

The new cellulosic sugar plant is the culmination of several years’ work by several players, including farmers, industry, and government, who have been trying to advance green technology and the bioeconomy.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) has been working on biomass issues for several years, says OFA president Don McCabe. McCabe farms in Sarnia-Lambton, near the proposed plant site and is also vice-chair of the Bio­industrial Innovation Centre (BIC), a non-profit group which aims to bridge the gap between research and the commercial application of green technologies.

“You have to get everything moving in the same direction,” says McCabe. “Farmers aren’t going to take off the stover without a market but the company won’t come unless farmers are taking off the feedstock.” While some say it’s the proverbial “chicken and egg” situation, McCabe prefers the analogy “the same tide will raise all boats.”

In 2013, the OFA hired the University of Guelph (Ridgetown Campus) to investigate the potential for a commercial-scale biorefinery. The report, called “Develop­ment of a Business Case for Cornstalks to Bioprocessing Venture” is available on the OFA website along with other studies completed by the OFA. Focus group meetings with producers were held as part of the investigation to determine producer interest and concerns. The analysis also considered four possible business models, and it then determined that a supply co-op where all entities of the value-chain could potentially be equity members was the preferred model.

OFA’s research indicated that problems with high levels of corn crop residue occur at yields above 150 bushels per acre, says McCabe. Soils will warm up faster with the excess corn stover removed but farmers will need to be compensated for the nutrients that are leaving the field, he adds.

OFA also organized corn stover baling demonstrations which were attended by about 1,000 farmers. McCabe says this work showed that the AGCO large square baler is capable of handling cornstalks in addition to wheat straw and hay.

Sarnia, which has been a petrochemical industry hub for more than 70 years, is a good location for the bioprocessing plant, says McCabe. Industrial land with all of the necessary infrastructure services is available as well as a skilled workforce. “And the feedstock is available just one concession over.”

Park and several other local farmers got involved about two years ago. BIC brought all of the players together, including farmers, government, end-users and technology providers. “It seemed to be a worthwhile project so we formed a co-oper­a­tive,” says Park. “That meeting seemed to create traction… the ball gained momentum.” He adds: “We’ve been passing all of the checkpoints ever since.”

“It’s good for farmers to be involved to steer the way the industry goes. We’re taking an active role in adding value to undervalued corn crop residue,” says Park.

BIC evaluated the various companies that had the technology to convert biomass into sugar. They started with 19 potential companies and during a process that took a year and a half, whittled the field down to a handful. At this point they let the farmer co-operative choose the successful company. “We let the co-op have the final say since it would be working with them,” says Dr. Murray McLaughlin, an adviser at BIC and the former executive director.

One of the reasons the co-op chose Comet Biorefining is that its proposal was not a megaplant, but it is scalable. “We have to walk before we can run. We don’t want to get too big too fast,” says Park.

The co-op also liked that Comet Biorefining can use more than one feedstock, continues Park. If there are problems, such as a heavy rain or early snow that makes it difficult to remove the stover, the plant could run on wheat straw or wood chips instead, although Park hopes it will be running on 100 per cent corn stover. “We want to build up a surplus inventory in the event of poor weather,” he says.

The Cellulosic Sugar Producers Co-operative will be holding information meetings this fall in order to complete its Equity Raise Campaign.

“We’ll show what work’s been done, but it will be up to each farmer to decide if it’s a fit,” says Park, who adds that they are hoping to attract about 100 to 150 members within a 100-km radius of the Sarnia plant.

McLaughlin expects agriculture will see even more diversification opportunities in the bioeconomy. “It could be selling crop residue or it could be purpose-grown crops such as Miscanthus or switchgrass.”

This article originally appeared in the September 2016 issue of the Corn Guide

The post From cornstalks to sugar appeared first on Country Guide.

What’s certain is that AgriStability isn’t winning any popularity contests. For instance, in a survey this spring by the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, farmers in that province ranked AgriStability lowest among the federal government’s suite of business risk programs.

Fewer than 20 per cent said AgriStability is actually benefiting their operations.

Worse, 35 per cent said they had already opted out.

“Governments have indicated that they have no desire to return to the days of ad hoc programs. But given the participation level in AgriStability, there’s certainly going to be a call for that if market shock occurs,” says Dennis Thiessen, a grain farmer from Steinbach, Man., who also chairs the safety nets committee of the Grain Growers of Canada.

In 2011, 88,492 producers were enrolled in AgriStability, according to the federal government. By 2013, enrolment had dropped to 74,121 (Agriculture Canada doesn’t yet have numbers for 2014 or 2015).

The federal government says the drop is partly due to farm consolidation and market conditions, along with business decisions made by farmers.

Thiessen, however, points out that while participation rates in AgriStability are declining, AgriInsurance and AgriInvest participation rates are solid, even though both programs require farmers to invest considerable dollars.

That’s because those programs are predictable and bankable, he says, adding “They provide peace of mind to farmers.”

The feds’ numbers confirm that AgriInvest has held steady. Over the same time period, enrolment went from 110,483 to 105,566 producers, a relatively small drop the feds attribute to consolidation.

Why exactly are so many producers giving AgriStability a pass? What needs to be done to fix the program? And, is withdrawing from the program in a farmer’s best interest?

Country Guide spoke to farmers, accountants, and farm group leaders to find out.

Yes, it’s complicated

Norm Hall, president of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, says one issue is what will happen to the farmers who have left AgriStability when the bottom falls out of the market.

But he’s also concerned about how well enrolled farmers will be covered.

“AgriStability is a misnomer now,” says Hall. With the drop in reference margins, it’s AgriDisaster, he says.

Whether or not farmers will see a payment under the program depends largely on their reference margins, calculated by subtracting allowable expenses from farm commodity sales. Under the first Growing Forward framework, reference margins were based on an Olympic average, determined by taking the last five years’ reference margins, dropping the highest and lowest margins, and averaging the remaining three. Farmers received a payment once their reference margin dipped to 85 per cent of that historical average.

But when the Growing Forward programs were renegotiated in 2013, the AgriStability payment trigger was dropped to 70 per cent.

“And the other change, which turns it into a real wild card for producers, is they have this limiting of the margin,” says Steve Funk, director of farm income programs at Meyers Norris Penny (MNP). The limited margin caps the reference margin to allowable expenses included in the margin. Farmers must use whichever margin is lower — either the limited margin or the original Olympic average.

Producers confused by these rules are in good company.

AgriStability and AgriInvest by the numbers

How much money have farmers contributed to AgriInvest?

In 2013, the government’s contribution was cut from 1.5 per cent to one per cent of allowable net sales. Producers started cutting their contributions to the programs as a result.

While it’s possible to estimate the size of the payment a farm might receive under AgriStability, it’s not easily done. Many farmers and their accountants have been unable to accurately forecast payments, says Ben Le Fort, senior farm policy researcher with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA).

OFA surveyed its members, and found 85 per cent of respondents said the program is difficult to understand. Even more doubt that their bankers understand the program either, or that their bankers would give them a better borrowing arrangement for participating.

“If you have inventory adjustments or you change your production in any way, it really throws off some of the numbers,” says Le Fort, who adds that not knowing what circumstances will trigger a payment and how much they might receive makes it more difficult to make long-term plans.

“Farmers understand that numbers have to be verified, and that’s the nature of the program,” says Thiessen. “But it’s still frustrating for farmers.”

And the changes to reference margins hit some farm operations harder than others.

Cranberry farmers, maple syrup producers, and organic farmers are a few examples of operations more likely to be limited by the rule changes because their expenses are relatively low compared to their allowable income, Funk explains.

There are also geographical divides. In Saskatchewan, for instance, farmers in the south tend to be affected more than their northern counterparts.

“North is canola-wheat country, and south is lentil-durum country. And lentils don’t take fertilizer,” explains Shea Ferster, business adviser with MNP in Saskatoon.

By contrast, Ferster points out, crop rotations in the south tend to be pulse-heavy. Those pulses cut fertilizer requirements, and the seed also costs less than canola. All that adds up to lower costs for southern Saskatchewan farmers, making them more likely to fall outside AgriStability’s limited margin.

Another source of frustration for farmers is that AgriStability discourages diversification on the farm, says Thiessen. For example, with a mixed farm, if either the grain or livestock side drops off, the overall farm is less likely to see a payment than farms that focus on one or the other.

Indeed, Hall says their survey shows that this is how farmers see it too, with more mixed farms appearing to pull out of AgriStability, along with smaller farms.

Funk agrees that mixed farms tend to qualify less often for AgriStability than farms that aren’t diversified. When they do qualify, they also might receive less benefit. But that’s not to say that they’ll never qualify for money, says Funk.

“We have some very large clients across the firm that are well diversified and we often see them qualify” he says.

Should you drop AgriStability?

In general, producers aren’t participating at the levels that they should. Some of them have gotten out of the program. And I think it’s a bad decision for a lot of them,” says Steve Funk of MNP.

People tend to look at the business risk management programs in isolation, Funk says. But asking whether or not a farm should enrol in AgriStability is the wrong question, he argues. Instead, farmers should ask how they can combine the available risk management programs to maximize their coverage at a reasonable cost.

Like some other advisory services, MNP’s accountants can show clients how much of their margin would be protected in various scenarios, so they can compare options.

For example, if you have a 30 per cent loss, how much of that loss will be covered through AgriStability alone? Or AgriStability with crop insurance? Or Global Ag Risk Solutions (GARS) instead of the Growing Forward programs? And what happens when you switch between the conventional and limited margin?

MNP also accounts for the costs of the programs. For a typical 5,400-acre Saskatchewan farm that we used as an example, AgriStability costs totalled $1.17 per acre. That broke down to $0.62 per acre in government fees, with the balance in accounting fees (MNP puts together the application and forecasts expected benefits for clients).

That’s a pretty typical cost for AgriStability. Ferster estimates that a 5,000-acre farm would pay between $1 and $1.50 per acre to participate in AgriStability. Fewer acres doesn’t drop the accounting fee significantly, he adds, because putting together the application and forecasting the benefits takes a certain amount of time no matter the farm size.

The bottom line is that when they are used together, crop insurance and AgriStability will cover most of the losses for this farm. Ferster and Funk say they haven’t seen many of their clients withdrawing from AgriStability, especially once they’ve learned how the different programs work together.

But are there scenarios where it makes sense to opt out of crop insurance and AgriStability and to pay into GARS instead? Ferster says he hasn’t found a better answer than “it depends.” Until you run the scenarios, you won’t know which options are best, he says.

Typically GARS competes better for a farmer who hasn’t been using crop insurance, because they’re then dealing with area averages rather than the farm’s average, Ferster adds.

GARS is also worth a look when AgriStability doesn’t provide a lot of coverage. Funk had a client whose $900,000 margin was being capped at half a million.

“That’s pretty severe limiting,” says Funk. That client was pondering whether AgriStability was still worthwhile. But when Funk crunched the numbers and did some forecasting, the eligible margin was heading back to $800,000 in the near future.

“Just because you’re limited one year doesn’t mean you’re limited to the same extent the next year,” Funk says.

He also adds it’s usually worth staying enrolled in the program, because dropping out and re-enrolling takes as much work or more.

As for the grain farm Funk used as an example during the interview, the limited margin would have dropped their AgriStability benefit by $6 per acre.

“Is the program still beneficial? You bet it is,” says Funk.

What farm groups want

All of the farm groups contacted for this story want AgriStability strengthened rather than scrapped.

“It’s a known commodity,” says Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) president Norm Hall. “You don’t have to guess what sort of ad hoc program is going to come out, or demand some sort of ad hoc program.”

On everyone’s wish list is returning payment triggers to 85 per cent of the reference margin. And everyone would like something done with the limited reference margin. OFA’s Le Fort would like to scrap that cap altogether, calling it a “double whammy” that cuts the likelihood of a payment and adds complexity to the program.

“We don’t mind if there’s a cap. But the one that they’ve got with eligible expenses is the wrong one because there’s unintended consequences there,” Hall agrees.

Although it’s difficult to change program rules midstream, the Grain Growers of Canada want the federal government to take another look at how AgriStability accounts for certain farm expenses, Thiessen says. For example, custom work, whether it’s work done by or for the applicant, is a messy area.

“There are different ways of calculating that in the costs. And they don’t always make sense,” says Thiessen.

Hall is also keeping his eye on the big picture when it comes to business risk management programs. There are all kinds of demands on the next policy framework, including trade and research along with business risk management.

Other groups, such as food processors, are also looking to Growing Forward for dollars that they used to access under Industry Canada, Hall says, then asks: “Will the government be willing to put more money into the total of the next policy framework, or are we expected to reduce something else to fund this extra demand?”

Given the falling participation rates in AgriStability over the last 10 years, “a simple return to the 85 per cent coverage rate” may not be the best solution, says Thiessen. He suggests “a deeper dive” to figure out what the issues are in the program, and to find workable solutions to those issues.

The Grain Growers of Canada wants an advisory committee to do that deep diving. Thiessen says they want representatives from national commodity associations on the committee. Provincial associations should also be at the table to address regional gaps in the program suite, he adds.

There was also a general feeling among the farm groups that the program needs to be more user-friendly and transparent. One complication is that AgriStability works on an accrual basis, while many farms operate on a cash basis, Hall says. Timing is also an issue, he says. Farmers can see payments from AgriInvest and AgriInsurance within 60 days, he says, but AgriStability takes six months, a year, or more.

Ontario’s OFA wants the government to encourage new farmers to enrol in AgriStability. The first five years are the riskiest phase, says Le Fort, so he would like program fees waived for those farmers.

Of course, AgriStability isn’t the only program potentially up for revision. Even farmer-favourite AgriInvest could use a few tweaks, according to farm groups who want the government contribution bumped from one per cent of allowable net sales back up to 1.5 per cent, restoring it to 2013 levels.

“We’re also asking them to encourage some investment from the program,” says Le Fort. Right now, when farmers withdraw funds from AgriInvest, that money comes from the government-contributed portion, triggering taxes. Le Fort wants farmers to be able to withdraw first from their share of the contributions to avoid those taxes.

“Under our recommendation it would be more like a TFSA,” he says.

“AgriInvest has been a good tool for small bumps in the road, as long as you had some good years prior to build up a bit of an account,” says Thiessen. “AgriStability is for the big bumps.”

And if there’s one thing you can count on in agriculture, it’s big bumps. Thiessen thinks the next one might be around the corner. Global stocks of wheat and coarse grains are building, causing prices to drop significantly, he says. And overall commodity prices are higher than they would be in Canada due to the weak dollar and low oil prices.

“When oil prices recover, and the dollar recovers with them, that’s when we’re going to see significant market shock.”

And he worries that’s when we’ll find the programs are lacking.

The post Deciding on AgriStability appeared first on Country Guide.

Mary Carver, food literacy specialist at the Ontario Home Economists Association (OHEA) sees it as the culmination of a trend that’s been building for at least a couple of generations.

Should farmers care? Increasingly, the answer is yes, and not only because some of these non-cooks are farm kids.

That’s because there’s an additional question that’s getting asked. If families don’t respect their food, will they respect the farmers who produce it?

It’s a worry for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has identified food literacy as part of its National Food Strategy.

Picking up on that theme too is the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) which has launched its Six by Sixteen campaign.

The goal of the Six by Sixteen campaign is to help young people learn to plan and prepare six nutritious, locally sourced meals by the time they are 16 years old. By arming them with lifelong healthy habits and skills, they’ll be supporting local farmers, food processors and our economy.

The plan is not to duplicate all the good information already available on commodity group and government websites, says Tyler Brook, e-communication co-ordinator at OFA. Instead, the “sixbysixteen.me” website will link to existing information found on the websites of collaborating partners, which include Chicken Farmers of Canada, Ontario Pork, Foodland Ontario, Dairy Farmers of Ontario and more.

The struggle to find time to prepare healthy meals from scratch isn’t unique to urban families. On farms across Canada, parents are busy working on and off the farm, shuttling kids to sports and other extra-curricular activities while also deeply involved in agricultural and community organizations.

The OHEA recently published a beautiful colour recipe book filled with helpful tips on buying, storing and cooking healthy food grown in Canada along with information on how that food is grown.

Here are a few recipes selected from the cookbook, Homegrown (Whitecap, 2015).

The Ontario Home Economists Association wants to see food literacy become part of the mandatory secondary school curriculum. There is a petition on the organization’s website at food-literacy.ca. There are almost 3,000 signatures on the petition so far. Its goal is to add another 2,000 signatures.

Gluten-free P.E.I. Potato Lasagna

Janet Buis, PHEc

INGREDIENTS

• ½ lb. (250 g) extra-lean ground beef
• ½ onion, chopped
• 1 cup (250 ml) sliced fresh mushrooms
• ½ green pepper, chopped
• 1 stalk celery, chopped
• 2 cloves garlic, minced
• 1, 24-oz. (640-ml) jar gluten-free tomato pasta sauce
• 1, 19-oz. (540-ml) can no-salt-added kidney beans, well rinsed and drained
• 1 tsp. (5 ml) dried thyme leaves
• ½ tsp. (2 ml) ground cumin
• 1 tsp. (5 ml) chili powder
• 4 small baking potatoes, scrubbed and very thinly sliced
• ½ cup (125 ml) packed shredded cheddar cheese

METHOD

1. Preheat oven to 375 F (190 C). Line a 9 × 13-inch (23 × 33-cm) baking dish with wet parchment paper and set aside.
2. Brown beef in a large frying pan over medium heat. Add onion, mushrooms, green pepper, celery and garlic and sauté for 5 minutes or until softened.
3. Stir in pasta sauce, kidney beans, thyme, cumin, chili powder and cook until heated through.
4. Arrange half of the potato slices over bottom of prepared dish, overlapping if necessary. Top with half of the beef mixture. Layer the remaining potato slices and cover with the rest of the beef mixture.
5. Cover with foil. Bake for 50 minutes or until the potatoes are tender.
6. Uncover and sprinkle with cheddar cheese. Bake until cheese melts, about 10 minutes. Let stand for 10 minutes before serving.

Makes 10 cups (2.5 l) One serving = 1½ cups (375 ml)

Per serving: 298 Calories, 5.7 g Total Fat, 2.7 g Saturated Fat, 0.1 g Trans Fat, 349 mg Sodium, 43.8 g Carbohydrate, 9 g Fibre, 11 g Sugars, 0 g Added Sugars, 18.5 g Protein

West Indian–style Curry Chicken

Rosemarie Superville, PHEc

INGREDIENTS

• 2 tsp. (10 ml) ground cumin
• 1 ½ tsp. (7 ml) ground coriander
• 1 tsp. (5 ml) ground black pepper
• ½ tsp. (2 ml) turmeric
• ½ tsp. (2 ml) iodized salt
• ½ tsp. (2 ml) ground ginger
• ¼ tsp. (1 ml) cayenne pepper (or to taste)
• 1 lb. (450 g) boneless skinless chicken breasts, cut into 1-inch (2.5-cm) chunks
• 1 tbsp. (15 ml) canola oil
• 1 onion, chopped
• 2 cloves garlic, minced
• 1 medium potato, peeled and cubed (approx. ½ inch/1 cm)
• 2 small tomatoes, chopped
• 1 medium carrot, scrubbed well and thinly sliced
• 1¼, cups (310 ml) sodium-reduced chicken broth

METHOD

1. In large bowl, stir together the cumin, coriander, black pepper, turmeric, salt, ginger and cayenne; toss with chicken pieces and let stand 15 minutes or longer in the refrigerator.
2. In a large deep non-stick skillet over medium heat, add the oil and onion, sautéing for 8 to 10 minutes or until lightly browned.
3. Add chicken pieces and garlic and cook until lightly browned, about 3 to 5 minutes.
4. Add potato, tomatoes, carrot and broth and bring to a boil; cover and simmer for 15 to 20 minutes, stirring occasionally or until the chicken and vegetables are tender. Any leftovers can be covered and stored in the fridge for up to 3 days.

Makes 4 cups (1 l) One serving = 1 cup (250 ml)

Per serving: 242 Calories, 5.4 g Total Fat, 0.7 g Saturated Fat, 0 g Trans Fat, 564 mg Sodium, 18.3 g Carbohydrate,
3 g Fibre, 4.6 g Sugars, 0 g Added Sugars, 32.2 g Protein

The post Time to get cooking appeared first on Country Guide.