Loading...
The Rural Voice, 2004-05, Page 8LESLIE HAWKEN &SON Custom Manufacturing LIVESTOCK & FARM EQUIPMENT USW li— iliyagilimisirerztm�11V7s' Ruunri 13,11e 1=:'ether fill° tiff; • h Flat Rack For the best quality and service - Call Jim Hawken RR #3 Markdale 519-986-2507 DRAINAGE Specializing in: Plastic Tile Installation > * Backhoe & Dozer Service - Septic System Installation Traditional Alternative Systems! For Quality, Experience, & Service, call: ane ©00A :6'd%236-73200 R.R. #2 Zurich. Ont. NOM 2T0 PARItER ®PARKER L I M 1 T E ID www.hay.neti-drainage 4 THE RURAL VOICE Keith Roulston When the shoe's on the other foot Keith Roidston is editor and publisher of The Rural Voice. He lives near Bluth, ON. As the implementation of the Nutrient Management Act approach- es, farmers are becoming increasingly anxious. At meetings with politicians you hear the same concerns over and over about provincial environmental officials coming onto farms and making orders with no basis in pract- icality. unmoved by the repercussions of their decisions for the farm owner. It's a fear that's easy to under- stand. We all fear arbitrary decisions by those who have power over us. That catch in your stomach when you see a police car in your rearview mirror comes in part because you have the feeling that in today's comp- licated world, there are so many laws you don't know about you're probab- ly breaking one at any given moment. Yet farmers. when they're in a position to do so, can be just as guilty of imposing rules that make little sense. Take a look at the situation with small flock owners for chickens and turkeys when they run afoul of marketing board regulations. A farm- er who raises heritage -breed turkeys, for instance, had a visit from a turkey board official warning him he's over the limit for keeping turkeys. Last year Chicken Farmers of Ontario reduced the number of chickens small flock owners can keep to 102 The number makes sense if you go along with CFO's belief that people should only be raising chicken for their own family's use. "The purpose, of course, is to ensure that all chicken that is sold is grown within the quota system," says Roy Maxwell, head of communications for CFO. But leaving aside the fact that small flock owners are often people hoping this income will help them grow toward full-time farming, they're also producing a product that the quota system doesn't (though Maxwell says CFO is looking at niche markets). These farmers are certainly not undercutting their chicken -farming neighbours on the basis of price. By the time they pay high processing fees at the few remaining small abattoirs, they're charging a premium price to their customers. Yet con- sumers are willing to pay to get chicken grown outside at a slower growth rate: a product not produced by the supply management system. The value of supply management has never been better demonstrated than in the current beef crisis, so the quota system is worth defending. But leaving aside the fact that small flock producers produce such a tiny fraction of the chicken marketed that they hardly endanger supply manage- ment (four million chickens go to market each week in Ontario), CFO makes no concessions to try to bring small producers within the system. Rather than package some quota in small amounts and tell these people it they want to produce commercially they have to come within the system. CFO requires a minimum quota of 14,000 units: an investment of nearly $800,000. Obviously there's little concern for bringing a new generation of producers into the system unless they have parents who are already chicken producers. The feather industry has been arbitrary in its "defence" of supply management. Some years ago the egg producers reduced the number of hens a non -quota holder could keep to 100 from 500 which had been the traditional level since supply manage- ment came into effect. There was no evidence 500 -hen flocks were under- mining the system. Quota holders just thought it was unfair anybody should be selling eggs but themselves. Farmers generally have a good reputation but among the small producers and the customers of these producers who want an alternative to the mass -marketed farm product, marketing boards have the same reputation as environmental officials do among farmers. Are these arbitrary rules worth the harm they do to farmers' reputations?0