Grain Farmers prioritize education to combat industry misconceptions

© AgMedia Inc.

Description (Tag): 

Comments

While Van Ankum, and the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO), bemoan consumer misconceptions about food, they studiously ignore the fact that the GFO is, after supply management, the farm community's chief propagator of misconceptions about food and food costs, in the GFO's case, the drag on the economy caused by the mandated use of ethanol.

Unless, and/or until, the GFO can see the economic and public policy damage caused by ethanol mandates, the organization's credibility will be severely impaired.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Good of GFO to recognize and make the change . Farmers Feed Cities is not as friendly a slogan when talking to Gov because of the history tied to it because of the farm rallies that happened at the time when the slogan/phrase came out . Good In Every Grain should be and is a better fit .

"Farmers Feed Cities" will never be forgotten by farmers or the public . FFC brought farmers together for a very needed and real cause . It was and still is a very catchy phrase that every one can relate to There is another phrase that TSC is using which is Farmers Feed Families . As good as it is , it does not have the punch factor that Farmers Feed Cities has .

Farmers Feed Cities would not be as recognized today as it is had it not been for the core group of farmers who pushed their farm leaders , held rallies and demonstrations in conjunction with and at times without farm groups and their leaders of the time . That group proved time and time again how quickly and in a matter of days a rally could be planned and executed in a proper legal manner . The fact that "Farmers" could put together these rallies shocked many farm organization leaders , Gov. and industry people . The quick thinking , wit and element of surprise caught many off gaurd . That group needs to be thanked and not forgotten .

That group had a name . How many remember the name and can name any or all of the members ?

I have no idea the answer, but I don't have to know the name of the group to know that they are most likely also members of the NFU or CFFO.

The farmers feed cities stickers always annoyed me, considering that ethanol and SM are nothing but a transfer of wealth from the non-farming public to farmers.

Nothing much ever came out of all that whining, except that it painted all farmers as idiots, it was just a year or 2 later that wheat took off and then corn and soys also. Then, of course, land shot way up as most farmers bought more land, and only the smarter ones bought bank stocks.

Prices are soft now so maybe that group will be gathering for a re-union.
Let's hope not.
Raube Beuerman

HaHa. You made a funny Beurman. Guess you never heard about Harper's plan for 'bail-ins' in the 2013 budget? The IMF is looking to categorize 'systemically important financial institutions' (Sifis). In Canada that means the big 3. The bail-ins are designed, in the event of 'economic destabilization', to allow Sifis to take a percentage of 'unsecured' funds from each and every account holder and transfer the funds into bank stock/bonds. So people that have more that the secured $100,000 are at risk of their funds being turned into bank stock if the economy goes south.

I would say, land is an excellent investment if you have money. Better than gold or silver.

A few years ago, and still today, alot of gloom and doomers attempted to argue that the only safe haven is gold, and some like you, say land. They have bet against the Canadian and US dollar, and also the stock market, (big banks included). Since then, they have lost their shirts, while anyone who bought the index and/or solid individual companies is up bigtime. Never forget that the big banks are best of friends with the government, even more so than dairy farmers. Besides, what do you think the price of land will be in the event of "economic destabilization"?
Raube Beuerman

I never saw a single person loose their 'shirt' with the economic roller coaster starting in 08. People might have lost potential investment increases and maybe some capital. Your statement is garbage. The banks are not 'best' friends with the government. The bank of Canada issues 'notes' to financial institutions, such as the big 3. We then borrow those 'notes' and use them as financial instruments. We are borrowing a form of currency when we stuff our wallets with dollar bills. In the past, the government helped stabilize the banks with bail-outs but that practice is outmoded. The next financial tremor, the government will declare bail-ins. That means, the money you have in your account over $100,000 (not that you have to worry Buerman) is at risk for being 'recapitalized' or shall we say, turned into bank stock so the bank can releverage the money account holders 'borrowed' from the bank of Canada. The government will give the bank of Canada the power to take back the money account holders but the government cannot physically take 'land'. Loosing money in the bank is worse than a reduction in the value of land.

Trust me, my sister is a bond trader with one of the "big three", and she has sat in on meetings with government finance people. The last thing government wants is unstability in the financial sector. That does not mean banks stock will not take a hit in the future, but there is no doubt in my mind that holding bank shares will return more than land in capital appreciation and dividend returns.

Raube Beuerman

So, Why is it O.K. for bank shares to appreciate but NOT farmland? And why is it O.K. for auto and truck prices to increase exponentially but not farmland? And why is O.K. for the minimum wage mandate to increase but NOT farmland? And why is it O.K. for development land prices to increase but NOT farmland?

The decision to buy a farm is an economic decision, unfortunately that does not seem to be happening these days. The value of bank shares, or any shares in a publicly traded company are, without going into great detail, based on earnings. The price of a farm should also be based on earnings.

If one was to buy a farm today for cashcrop purposes only, you will most likely need 1.4 million for a hundred acres. You could rent it for $3-400 per acre and make 30-40 thousand.

Or you could buy solid companies that pay a 4% dividend and make more.

I have a small amount of one stock that is currently paying 8%

That is why I think land is overvalued, especially considering that the cost of money cannot go any lower(well maybe a half or quarter percentage).

I also think that if the price of commodities stay where they are now, or move much lower, over the next few years, some farmers will face some serious realities.

Raube Beuerman

If you worry so much about the value of land going down, what makes you think the value of your stocks will continue to return 8%? The value of land might go down but it is a long process for the bank to take the land if there is non-payment. The value of stock can disappear in a wink of a eye. I'll stick with land.

Transfer of wealth does not happen with land , food , stocks or bonds or any thing else in the world that people buy . It only happens with SM and ethanol . At least according to Rube . Cracking me up better than a comedian .

It has nothing to do about the increase its why it increased i.e. if it is worth that amount etc. However if it is increasing in value say just because people want a tax right off . That is hard on the next generation and of course poor money management. Which can happen when sm people can't buy quota

Best Friends Forever does nothing other than protect their own interest .
Ask your sister how many she can feed with or the nutritional value of those bonds .
You funny !

Rube
Fully disagree with that statment
Were is your prof to back it up?
You r totolly out to lunch on who was involled in the farmer feed cities and who the leaders were!
Again your statment prove me wrong!
I was not 1 of the leaders before you ask!
However I ask ? What you have ever done to help out your fellow farmers
REAL EASY TO SIT BACK be a armchair quarter back and critise so here is your chance to blow your horn and show what a good fellow you really r all the voulnter hours time spent away from home etc
Go for it
Larry Lynn6

Larry, when legislation like ethanol and SM were introduced years ago, most farmers ignored the long term consequences. Profits then became capitalized into land and other farm assets, and have locked out potential young farmers. If there ever comes a day to protest how policies distort markets, I'll be there. In addition, if a protest like that ever was to happen(which it won't), we would most likely capture support from the general public, rather than infuriating them-which solves nothing.

Raube Beuerman

Some of the guys crying the most in 2006 have been now paying the most to rent or buy every farm around them . Farmers have lost my respect . If farms go broke by greedy business ideals why bail them out? Most will file for debt relief or bankruptcy and do it all again . Look around your county and a lot of the guys that want to be the biggest player have been through debt review or wrote off debts in bankruptcy.

Rube, sence a little deflection, but will play along
so heres a. ? Or 2 for u
How does shinny new barns and houses make the livestock sector look.
High replacment costs for both pork and beef is the complaint of the day
You know all those barns and houses in the pig loops of a few years ago based on cheap corn forever then a crash a buyout with gov $$ and now cheap corn again producers can't find enough barns to fill was the story more than 6 months ago in more than one farm magazine
possibly even more to the point fewer producers producing more pork now
Fail to see very few if any new young producers
Lots of contract barns but very few own and control the hogs
Show were My thoughts r wrong
Just might be a small crowd come protest time as the issues with manure and smell stil remain in the puplie eye
Just saying from a your perspective if u beleive shiny tracters r problem, some others have as big or bigger issues to solve is my point of veiw
Will also point out lots of shinny new tractors, equipment and pickups on all farms just not neceraily GRAIN FARMERS
Larry L
PS you might just want to answer my orgional ? Re cities subsides farmers, Rather than go on another witchhunt on SM and ethonal etc

Exactly what part of the legislated consumption taxes of ethanol and SM that result in the transfer of wealth from urban folk to farmers do you not understand?

Raube Beuerman

Rube
Would that be with any orginal thoughts?
Steve is quite capable and persistant on his own
I give him full marks for that
If u Rube have a orgional idea or explation on your own lets hear it
Otherwise same old been there done that circle again
Larry Lynn

It might surprise you to know there were only 3 farmers (not board members or GFO active farmers who met with Helen Johns (min of ag) about the monopoly control of the OWPMB. By the end of the meeting a limited number of exemptions to marketing through the board were a reality. Of those first limited number the then president was number three.

Tell me the board itself had faith in their own marketing.

I am sure you (Raube) have never objected to the higher prices you have received for wheat over the last few years. This is the same SM monopoly outcry that comes from you and others on this site.

Yes those idiot farmers you refer to would have been only too happy to have the freedom of open marketing excluded from you for your ungratefulness for unthanked work not done by any board or GFO

Rube
You would have been much better to quit after writing I don't know the answer
Farmers feed cities facts
Had nothing to do with what farm org one belonged to be it leader or supporter
Slogan and program started with the grains and oil seeds sector in Ont
Nothing to do with SM or one specific comodity agenda
Farmers working together for a common cause to raise awarness and support in gov and people not involled directly with farming the importance to the econmy and spply of safe food

Calling all farmers idiots is not what I would call a good pr move or a way to drum up support but feel free to carry on shoot away
Possibly when your sector of ag has soft prices some of those idiots in your mind will rember all your support and thoughtful comments
Please rember these r your words not mine and I still disagree with your titile as lots of rural tax $$ some who are farmers to subside the infastrue in the cities and there enviorment so it is a 2 way street

t

Not surprised at the negative answer from Rube . Even when some puts out a positive post you can be assured that some arm chair quarter back idiot know nothing farmer will have to bash it in some way . Farmers from across the province from all commoditties came together under Farmers Feed Cities for a common cause of Agriculture as a whole . Only some one who is not a real farmer would not understand that . Maybe Rube was just getting out of his huggies and graduating to pull ups at the time this work was taking place .

So Steve Thompson wants to rant on supply mangement and ethonal what a surprise once more
food for thought Steve there is also bio projects mandates etc
SO IT SEEMS u are against all grain farmers and those in supply managment of any kind
TIME for answer
Just who r u in favour of? ?? And fronting for
ZStraight foward ? I beleive
Looking foward to all the BS redirection deflection name calling grammer correcting that will surely be comming my way from you and your millions of supporters
Larry Lynn

Good question Larry ...It seems Mr Thompson agrees with Mr Schmidt breaking laws and not paying fines...giving contrary advise to his tax clients regarding Agri-Corp ....wanting to breakdown Chicken quota along with PFO President............I will be waiting to hear what he really is in favour of as well

G Kimble

Like any responsible economist, I have an obligation to, and do, point out the false half of economic half-truths - in modern-day Canadian agriculture, half-truths are most-often proffered to defend the legislated entitlements enjoyed by some farmers at the expense of consumers and other farmers, and the two most-noticeable examples of that entitlement are ethanol, and supply management.

Therefore, I would really like to see farmers (other than our pork and livestock farmers who already know the truth) recognize basic economic truth, and admit that both ethanol and supply management are, by definition, not just net-negative when it comes to jobs and economic activity, but are also divisive and disruptive to the rest of the farm community and are, therefore, poor public policy.

The proof, however, seems to always be "in the pudding" in that if what gets posted on this site in defence of ethanol and supply management is the best defence the farm community has for either, both are in big trouble, and rightly-so.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

your answer is the same old same old answer Steve
See no soultions for moving foward from u
Possibly you r suggesting if only beef and pork are all that are left all will be well in the in rural ONT and Canada
Fyi pork and beef are buying farms and outbidding others here so u may get your wish
Please don't try selling the story that livestock has never received any Gov $$$ or support in the past or in the next downturn and will not be looking for more help once again

Larry L

I continue to take issue with both supply management and ethanol because other than the:

(1) legitimized transfer of wealth from one sector of agriculture to another
(2) legitimized transfer of wealth from poor consumers to rich dairy and poultry farmers.
(3) legitimized splitting of the farm community into haves and have-nots
(4) entrenchment of the sense of entitlement felt by corn, dairy, and poultry farmers at the expense of everyone else.

ethanol and supply management will continue to be net-negative for jobs and economic activity, and will continue to be, therefore, bad public policy.

The solution to "moving forward" would be, of course, to:

(A) eliminate the tariffs propping up supply management
(B) eliminate the mandates propping up ethanol

Mr. Lynn can flail away as much as he wants - alas for him, his efforts are, and will be, futile because basic economic reality is not on his side.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I sence a little chill in the air from MR THOMPSON
Sorry don't have time to play right now
Will make some time latter to discuss the merits of the chosen ones agenda and will review basic econmics
Might have to start with widgets and who cares about your cost of productio :-)
Sound familer to some?
Larry Lynn

The market doesn't care about anyone's cost of production, nor should it - if you're not prepared to sell for what the market is willing to pay, and someone else is, that's called capitalism which, alas, seems to be a concept not well understood in the farm community.

Any chill in the air comes from having to continually defend basic economic prinicples which, anywhere else but in the farm community, aren't open to debate, or even discussion.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

knew you would be unable to resist Steve
No time now but Latter u can give the econmics course
IF i able to sell my product not my issue what happens after that
The more markets ie buyers the better
Anf if able to do a little proccesing reinvent put a fancy name or make health claims
and make more $ the better
Think thats called captlism :-)
As long as there is a buyer works for me
Before going into tail spin about mandates etc
its a dog eat dog world by the econmist code do what you have to do to survie
Even cash someones eleses ck it seems is the advice and motto to live by
Larry L

Well, just a sad little Guelph Ag Econ grad from the 70s, but still your subject line - "cost of production has nothing to do with economics" made me laugh hysterically!!! Thanks!

Seriously though, in the long-run equilibrium of a perfectly competitive industry, the market price, the number of firms in the industry, and each firm's scale of production adjust such that all firms produce at the lowest point on their long-run average cost curves -which is its minimum efficient scale.

The condition that price equals marginal cost is the standard condition for economic efficiency. So what are you smoking?????

Hold on for a tirade of logic twisting and self-delusional, self-justifying crap!

Stick to tax preparation.

The easiest way for anyone to go broke is to "produce at the lowest point on their long-run average cost curve" and then try to compete with someone who has a lower long-run average cost.

That's why, when it comes to the economic reality facing decision makers, one's cost-of-production is moot if/when someone else can, and is, selling for a price which, if you try to match, will drive you into bankruptcy. That's why nobody cares about your cost-of-production, nor should they.

As for the "sad little Guelph Ag Econ grad from the 70s" slur, I'll match the economics I learned while taking my MBA from what is now the Richard Ivey School at the University of Western Ontario, with anything any anonymous coward on this site can bring forward - and that includes anyone who claims that he/she holds too important a position to identify himself/herself.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

It is so very easy for some one to hide behind what education they finished or hold it up as a shield for protection . I am not the poster you were replying to but you can be assured that I have seen my fair share of those who claim to be so highly educated who are nothing more than morons when it comes to real life not in a text book example .

Yes you may have a diploma or certificate that you can hang on a wall and no one can take that away from you . Truth of the matter is that your certificate/diploma is 40 or more years old and things have evoled and changed since then . You need to keep up with the times , the current new world thinking/decision making and not be stuck in the last century .
We are in 2014 not 2006 or 1980 . You might have taken the course and been given a pass . That does not mean that you actually learned any thing !

Nobody needs to take advice from anyone who refuses to identify himself/herself.

The only thing a degree or diploma does is enable the holder of that degree or diploma to know not just that someone is incorrect, but why it is incorrect.

As for basic economic truth, nothing has changed in the almost 200 years since the lessons taught by the Corn Laws experience - lessons that modern-day Canadian agriculture still adamantly refuses to learn.

The basic, and deniable truth, in any decade, and in any century, is that tariffs and mandates, and therefore supply management and ethanol, are, by definition, bad economic policy, and bad public policy - it would be delusional to believe, and/or to promote, anything else

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

A few people consistently demonstrate that arrogance and ignorance are really the ultimate moronic behaviors.

Everything I have ever posted about ethanol and supply management is intuitively obvious to anyone with even the most-modest education, as well as basic common-sense.

Too many problems in agriculture arise because people with a modest education seem to want to show disdain, as do many members of the anonymous rabble on this site, for people who were ambitious enough, and curious enough, to have become well-educated.

Agriculture, alas, is one of the few industries which seems to prize the belief that uneducated "hicksterism" is preferable to being well-educated - a concept which is demonstrated time-and-time again on this site as the anonymous rabble goes to increasingly-desperate lengths in a futile effort to prove me wrong

As for me, I graduated in the top half of my MBA class.

Stephen Thompson,

I have watched many of your arrogant and condescending tirades from the sidelines. My years of farm experience is very different. I am involved in an active, province-wide agri-business and find the majority of full-time farmers 60 and under are university-educated. Those who are not are still nobody's fools. They are a very astute group of quite sophisticated professional business people. I hold them in great respect. I suspect most will not stoop down to respond to you. This seems like a small pool and you certainly think you are a big fish. They often do.

You need to realize that Mr Thompson has "time on his hands" to be able to comment daily about everything in a negative fashion. He is not a happy content person...also not worth responding to.

Stan Holmes

Two days ago, my oncologist told me that I was six months cancer-free and that, by definition, makes me the happiest, and most-content person in the world.

However, the cancer experience has increased my resolve, especially on behalf of the next generation of farmers, to take issue with:

(A) the legislated entitlements enjoyed by some in the farm community
(B) the selfish attitudes these entitlements generate, as well as the fierceness with which/by which these entitlements are defended

Mr. Holmes is right about one thing - if someone is trying to defend either supply management or ethanol, two legislated entitlements which pit farmers against one another, as well as being bad economic and public policy, I really am "not worth responding to".

Furthermore, I don't comment about everything in a negative fashion - I continue to be deleriously happy that Ontario Pork, at its annual meeting in early 2013, voted by a margin of some 68 - 13 to urge government to place trade ahead of protectionism.

I continue to be deleriously happy when people, like fellow economist, Kevin Grier, write letters to the Ontario Farmer pointing out that I didn't go near far-enough in my own prior letter criticizing ethanol.

I also continue to be deleriously happy that my critics on this site, especially the anonymous ones, can't seem to be able to think their way out of a wet paper bag, and are, therefore, continually unable to do anything but "shoot the messenger".

I continue to be deleriously happy that the Dairy Farmers of Ontario made a huge political mistake when, in late 2010, they took out a full-page advertorial in at least one major Canadian newspaper, wherein DFO's own numbers showed that Ontario consumers were paying almost 38% more for milk than US consumers and that the farm gate price of milk in Ontario was within pennies per liter of the US retail price.

I continue to be deleriously happy when people like Mr. Linton post letters on this site pointing out that when it comes to ethanol and supply management, I am completely right and then some, and that my critics are simply making themselves look idiotic (and really selfish) by trying to defend the indefensible.

Finally, I am deleriously happy that Mr. Holmes is so unable to disprove the truth of what I write, that all he can do is complain about everything else.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Yes, I am sure most readers recognize ...

Editor: Anonymous comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

If the majority of full-time farmers under the age of 60 truly are university educated, and/or learned anything when they were there, we wouldn't see:

(1) such strong support for ethanol
(2) such strong support for supply management
(3) such a high price/earnings multiple for farm land

Unfortunately for agriculture, we are, because of our collective beliefs as per the three items above, everybody's fools - I'm neither arrogant nor condescending for pointing out our collective folly, but genuinely concerned about the completely-untenable, and completely-unsustainable burdens we are selfishly placing on our customers, whether they be consumers or other farmers, and the next generation of farmers, who, if they did learn anything while at university, are sharp enough to avoid going into primary agriculture in the first place.

More to the point - "An astute group of quite sophisticated professional business people" does not:

(A) disdain customers the way farmers do
(B) disdain others in the same field of endeavour the way farmers do
(C) disdain the next generation of that profession the way farmers do
(D) sit idly by and do nothing when legislative entitlement strangles one sector of agriculture for the benefit of another.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Steve if you are so well educate why are you stuck at a computer belittling people and not running the Country or a CEO at Hydro or Microsoft?
There is well educated people top in their class that knows only what they were taught in the class or books and they cannot grasp what is going on in the real world.
Wild where you can get some people to blow their own Horn and think they are the ones that keep this world turning and does not realize that the world will still go on even after they are long gone.

We are at substantial risk of turning away, and/or eventually bankrupting, the next generation of farmers because of the selfishness, and narrow-mindedness of the present generation.

Why, for example, would any of the next generation's "best and brightest" want to have anything to do with an industry so collectively inept at investment strategy that an up-to 50 times price/earnings multiple on land isn't considered to be suicidal?

Why also, for example, would any of the next generation's "best and brightest" want to have anything to do with an industry so collectively inept that the industry's definition of "success" is more dependent on, and/or equated to, legislated entitlement than economic principles?

Therefore, I challenge anyone, anonymous or otherwise, to prove that I don't know, don't understand, and don't agonize about, what is going on in "the real world" of modern-day Canadian agriculture - it's sad, it's tragic, and it's going to be a train-wreck.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

"We have an obligation to the next generation of farmers".

No, "we" don't and you are dead wrong. The government has an obligation to the next generation of farmers. The Minister of Agriculture must prove a complete report on the status of agriculture to cabinet each year because of constitution requirements. And they are the ones doing a really poor job of it.

As long as your willing to stick by caplisim selling or not selling we can move on and thats fine by me
So to clear that means I a seller only have to worry and look after my own interests and costs and if my buyer goes belly from paying to much or pays to much for other inputs its not my issue right?
Certainaly this work both ways but if some one else offers more its game on forget about loyalty or constant supply
Basic econmics right?
Some one below disagees with you but in order to move things along do we have agrement or not
That should be a yes or no but expexpt a little deflection redirection what ever
Now as far as the chill facter Mr Thompson
You have alreday said self appointed so feel free to pack up stop the bullying,name calling and move on I will leave also
You are the one to want to bring everything back to SM and ethonal and poked into another disscusion with the wrong and cranky comment
You reap excatly what you have sown so be as frustrated as you want to be
I know it comes a shock that some one would actually call you out but here we are
My hands are no longer tied
Hat checked at the door :-)
You have not proven me wrong and seems some others just might agree :-)
Larry L
Ball is in your court

Interesting
I [STeve Thomson] continue to take issue with both supply mangment and ethonal
Not Kevin Greir or the George Morris center or others
But Mr Thompson likes to use them and some other reports when pushed for answers as back up
Seems the chosen self appointed messenger must depend on others when push comes to shove
Thanks for finaly putting all your bias and only answer is to eliminate
When starting down that road no cherry picking
Lets just elimiante all tarrifs and mandates
as thats what gov likes to do when opening up the books to change things
Be careful what u wish for is my thoughts but then what would I know
Right Mr Thompson, i am just flaling away according to you and on that to no surprise we disagrre
Suggest all your new freinds in pork and beef look closely at this and think long and hard on what that might mean
Larry Lynn
Ps now on to the econimics lesson :-) on other posts

Seems to me several large beef feed lots have proven the cost effectiveness of ddgs is positive otherwise why would anyone keep buy it and feed same? Furthermore, the price of corn is half what it was in 2007-08, so the optics of your half truth is very cloudy.

Kevin Grier used to tell, as only an Irishman can, the following very-apt joke about the feed value of, and/or economic value of, the dried distillers grains which are a by-product of ethanol.

On his death-bed O'Donnell gave his buddies, Pat and Mike, a bottle of the finest Irish whiskey and made them promise that they would sprinkle it over his grave after he had died - when it came time to sprinkle the whiskey, Pat, after a lot of thought, turned to Mike and asked - "Do you think O'Donnell would mind if we filtered this fine whiskey through ourselves before we sprinkled it on his grave?"

I am advised that ethanol supporters regularly went apoplectic upon hearing the story.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Most have already heard your stale joke Stephan.

Furthermore, it seems you are knowingly adding beef feed lot farmers to your list of farmers who are stupid and can't figure the dollar value of feeding ddg's.

I've had any number of beef feedlot operators phone me to complain about price-gouging by ddg vendors. The problem, as explained to me, is that ddgs always seem to be priced so as to be just slightly more appealing than whole corn, thereby making ddg not a viable option, but rather, just a less-worse an option than buying whole corn.

If I understand things correctly, if for example, because of ethanol, corn went from $4 per bushel to $6 per bushel, and if ddg had, at $6 for whole corn, a price equivalent of $5 per bushel, ddg is better than buying $6 corn, but worse than buying $4 corn in the absence of ethanol.

Ethanol advocates, therefore, seem to be quite-slippery with the truth when promoting the so-called "dollar value" of ddg when compared to what whole corn would cost in the absence of ethanol use mandates.

Or, to use another analogy, touting ddgs as an alternative to whole corn when ethanol use is mandated, is kind of like a slave owner telling a slave - "being a slave isn't all that bad, at least you've got full employment."

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The fact is corn is currently priced at half what it was a few years ago and beef pricehas gone thru the roof. Had a large beef feedlot farmer approach me at the Outdoor Farm Show and claim he is making lots of money on his ddg feed cattle. He now admits his real COP problem is his Western replacement cattle. They seem to know he has more money to spend on replacements, so they jack up the price accordingly. Boys will be boys I guess.

As Kevin Grier pointed out in last week's Ontario Farmer, corn is half the price it was a few years ago because corn farmers used ethanol mandates to drive their traditional livestock customers, if not out of business completely, at least into a retrenchment mode.

Or, in other words, grain farmers are now realizing, and reaping, the folly of spurning their traditional livestock customers in favour of the ethanol "mistress" and have only themselves, and their short-sighted greed, to blame for today's relatively-low corn prices.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

More quarter truths from Mr. Thompson and his fellow Doomsday prophets. Just as overproduction of pigs and cattle caused a glut of meat on the market from time to time over the past few decades with resulting high and low price times, corn farmers tend to do the same. Extremely high corn yields coupled with an increase in acres plus a stronger U.S. dollar certainly contribute to the majority of price decline. Unfortunately, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Grier seem to want to exaggerate for their followers dramatic entertainment purposes.

Would increased yields and increased corn acreages have been as dramatic without ethanol mandates diverting up to 40% of US corn production into ethanol? - do pigs have wings?

Basic economic principles still dictate that, at any level of corn acreage and/or price of corn, the mandated diversion of corn into ethanol is, and always will be, net-negative for jobs and economic activity.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Yield increases ethanols fault... really?? Give your head a shake. Its a no brainer. And you taught at Guelph?
Long before ethanol, Technology, biotech, science, fertilizer, chemicals, pesticides including fungicides and mother nature have all contributed to increased yields.

You seem to purposely forget that with ethanol production there is still feed production that happens because of the ddg's . So to say that 40 percent is wrong and maybe you need to show the true percentage . The way you make it sound is that all corn should only ever get used for hog feed and that any other feed use is a direct competitor for hog feed and is net negative against cheap feed for hogs .

Price drives markets and production . Low price - low production . High price - more production . Sort of basic economics is it not ?

Basic economic principals say get the best price you can for your product from where ever you can get it . To the hog industry that might mean going after a market outside of your own country and allowing some one else to supply your own country cheaper . There is nothing saying that hogs have to be used for food . Actually some people would say that they should not be . Some even say that they should be naturally grazed on pasture so no cost of buying feed would be needed .

If pigs had wings every one would have their own piggy-plane to drive to work instead of a car . Subways could be used for high speed transit hog ally net work . Just jump on a passing pig and exit where you want . Seems you are looking at the writing/making of a next Harry Potter sequel or maybe you are thinking more along the line of the George Jetson. I can just imagine the pictures of pigs lined up like bicycles in Amsterdam

Almost anyone in grade school person could tell you increased yields are dependent on;
1. science plus (GMO etc. etc.)
2. technology ( JD etc. etc.) plus
3. weather.
As for the inflated 40% acreage number, with a little research they could also tell you the inflated 40% acreage figure you used is actually closer to 23% if you include all the ddgs etc.
Furthermore, as for mandate, unlike oil and gas, ethanol has been proven to reduce Co2 which is the mandate of the Ontario Liberal government to reduce Co2!

Steve
Yes pigs have man made wings and do fly out of this country
Livestock has man made wheels and cross the border every day
So we have trade actions of all kinds such as cool etc and some of my tax dollars going into all the trade actions
SO JUST GIVE IT A REST
BASIC econmics priciples
Thinking flooding some one elses home market dosen't cause trade actions and wasted money and loss of jobs and econimic activety
Guess if you want to sugest keeping lawyers,breaucrats and polticans as a cash flow does that make it a plus or minus.?
Nothing new here Steve

Clearly, more acres times more yield per acre causing overproduction of corn in the U.S. of A is the primary cause of corn low prices. More to the point, it proves point blank we can not only produce enough corn to feed livestock we have more than enough leftover to help fuel North America and produce cleaner air. According to the Ontario government Clean Air is what they got elected to deliver and ethanol helps deliver on that promise.

Wrapping ethanol in the flag of energy self-sufficiency and environmental benevolence has always been the epitome of self-serving drivel and the triumph of half-truth over economic reality especially:

(a) in Canada which is a net energy exporter
(b) in the US subsequent to the adoption of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) which has helped to lower the price of natural gas in the order of some 70% in the last half-dozen years, and which, along with declining consumption of petroleum, has put the US well on the way to energy independence
(c) given the consumption of/squandering of resources, including "clean air" needed to produce ethanol
(d) given the definitional economic and public policy drag caused by the mandated use of ethanol.

In addition, it is not surprising, yet always disappointing, to see ethanol supporters become increasingly shrill when defending the ethanol boondoggle, especially now that low corn prices demonstrate, in spades, the perfectly-logical result of ethanol mandates which drove corn prices (and eventually corn production) into the stratosphere in the first place, thereby almost bankrupting the entire North American hog and livestock sector along the way.

Furthermore, while ethanol supporters were able to successfully use fear-mongering arguments about energy self-sufficiency and clean air to launch the ethanol industry a dozen years ago, time, hydraulic fracturing, and our experience with the now well-known, and well-understood, adverse effects of ethanol mandates during the intervening time period, have all demonstrated that the arguments successfully used by ethanol supporters to launch the ethanol industry then, simply wouldn't work today.

Therefore, it is quaint, and so-like someone who has been asleep for a dozen years, to still proffer, and even worse to do it anonymously, the by now completely-discredited nostrum that, at any level of the price of corn, ethanol can, and/or should "help fuel North America and produce cleaner air".

More to the point, and to return to the original story about the attempt by the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO) to address so-called "mis-conceptions" about food (and, by implication, ethanol), the biggest mis-conceptions about food and ethanol continue to be those promoted by the GFO and some of its shriller members.

Sorry, GFO, and all ethanol supporters - this is 2014, not 2006. Get over it.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

hey Steve
going to try this one more time politely
Its almost 2015 and agree its certainaly time to forget past history and the rehash
What has been done is over and done with
Please take your own advice and just let it go and move foward
If I am the first to tell you to move on I am truley disapointed that freinds or others have not spoke up before
If you have chosen to lgnore thats on you
You are much better than this
Its time to move foward with some new ideas to help all of agriculture
There are more than enough distacters out there
Fighting and disrespect between different interests in ag isnot helping att all
SO if I was not clear enough put aside the ideas of going back or doing away with whats already there
Not saying changes cannot be made Howevr we in ag need to have the ideas and plan to make the
change rather let the gov dictate how things go
I AM NOT THAT NIAVE as to think we will always get what we want or is needed,however having no plan or a well thought plan of attack is a sure way to have our pockets picked and more rules and regulations and no compensation
So you can read between the lines whatever u want
My mind is not changed
Will not say anything about the rest of your post nothing is new
If any of the above upsets you it is not ment to
You have had lots of good postive thoughts and flagged faults re P1, P2 ETC
you haveDone your rant etc now let it go and move on with some postive ideas please
The past is the past
No body gets to rewrite past history
Larry Lynn
The ball is in your court
This a very short mild polite version of many drafts written in my mind
the same old is not doing anyone any good
just remember I say what I mean and mean what I say and yes that can get me in trouble sometimes :-)
So do not take this as my being scared away or out of ammo :-)
Just would rather see some postives rather than negatives going foward

There seems to be something about ethanol supporters, and supply management supporters, which defies logic - to them, a "positive idea" they don't like isn't a positive idea at all.

The unvarnished truth is that as long as ethanol mandates exist, corn ethanol will never be anything more than a legitimized transfer of wealth from one sector of agriculture to another, with marginal, if any, benefits to the environment, and with marginal, if any, benefits to the shibboleth of "energy security", but with an absolute, net-negative effect on jobs and economic activity.

Therefore, the "positive idea", as well as economic and public policy necessity, is to eliminate ethanol use mandates.

Unfortunately, while this "positive idea" makes perfect sense to anyone with even the most-cursory understanding of economics, as well as to anyone who feeds corn to livestock, it will always be a "bad idea" to corn farmers because they would thereby lose their ethanol-based ability to legitimately plunder their traditional customers.

If corn farmers truly do need income support, if for no other reason than so that they won't be steam-rollered by the even-bigger obscenity known as supply management, the most-responsible, and most-benign way to achieve it would be through direct government support which, by definition, wouldn't adversely affect either livestock farmers or consumers.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

1.“Direct Gov't Support”
-WOW, what a unique idea.
-When can we expect ALL farm groups, think tanks, as well as, Mr. Thompson to fight for such a great idea and make it retroactive for the past few decades?
-Been trying to get a level competitive playing field with the U.S. Farm Bill grain component for several decades now.
2. -Dumping U.S. corn into Ontario was not right as even the GMC stated. -Equivalent support was turned down by our gov't. so countervail ensued. GMC even said grain farmers needed a level playing field.
3.-Because of politics and the greater good theory of the needs of the value added sector, grain farmers countervail was thrown under the bus.
-Fast forward.
-Solution:
4. Gov't said find an alternative market as in ethanol similar to U.S. so voila. Don't like the solution?
5. Now what ...oh ya ….finally back to 1.

other than the last pargraph the rest is the same old rehash again with all its faults
Now finaly (has squat to do with supply mangment and its you Steve who want to keep repeating the tie IN YOUR 2 TRICK dog and pony show) there is now a caped program that went down that row called Risk managment prorgram ie RMP for short form
Designed with the help of others in the Grain and oil seed sectors by a well respected econmist, teacher Mr Brain Doidge who could run cicles around you Steve in degrees and common sence any day of the week
In talks at the bd level behind closed doors it was offered to all for to support Ie livestock
The answer was not needed by livestock and fears of counterveil by lifestock leaders at the time
Many times behind closed doors corn org said the cheap corn price was not sutainabe at the low level and the answer at the time is basicaly To bad what u going to do about it
Think every one is aware of action taken and another was RMP push
Ethonal work had begun long before that
Short version RMP became a fact after years of lobbying and fine tuning and crystal clear info on how the program worked and what pay outs were to be based on
That is still transparent and open today from the G&O sector
Fast foward to today a capped program is now in effect with G&O paying the freight to get RMP and the other who wanted now part of the program joining forgetting there counterfiel wotrries and drawing dollars out with less than traparent details on how there programs work and with a larger potential for large pay out so a capped program is were we r today
The above is basic information
I was there at the bd level unlike some other armchair experts in there own mind critics
If any of the above is seen as bashing of any secter it is not ment to be but just some facts
By the way i do have freinds in livestock at many levels while we may not always see things the same way at times we can share some good corn whiskey and not name call and rant and rant on the same thing over and over and over
It might even be called cooperation and working together on some things and agree to disagre on others
But with mutual respect a
a trait a few on here do not have
Not wishing to center any one out
And wanting to be politicaly correct you know,possibly also a foreign concept to some :-)
Larry Lynn

While Mr. Lynn goes to great, albeit somewhat disjointed, lengths to promote cooperation between farm groups and/or farm sectors, he studiously ignores the obvious, which is that mandates for ethanol use have nothing to do with cooperation, but have everything to do with corn farmers demanding - "me first".

In addition, Mr. Lynn appears to be claiming that grain farmers did all the work to develop RMP and that livestock producers did nothing except show up at the 11th hour to share (and thereby dilute) the financial benefits of the program. Unfortunately, Mr. Lynn still refuses to recognize that RMP for livestock is little more than an ethanol injury assistance program, and that, therefore, livestock producers deserve (well-more than) 100% of the money allocated to RMP, and grain farmers deserve nothing.

On a more-visceral note, if grains farmers, and Mr. Lynn's apparent hero, Brian Doidge, truly did do a good job developing RMP, they'd have refused to go any further when government made RMP benefits an advance on the provincial portion of AgriStability -and while I can't speak for Mr. Doidge, I can, and will, excoriate grains farmers for standing idly by (and still continuing to do so) when government foisted this stipulation onto the RMP program.

More to the point, if I correctly understand this latest offering from Mr. Lynn, it saddens me to note that while he touts cooperation, his continuing disdain for livestock farmers is evident:

(1) because he refuses to recognize the financial burdens ethanol imposes on livestock farmers.
(2) because he seems to blame livestock farmers for in effect, "taking the RMP program away from grain farmers" even though, because of the adverse effects ethanol had on them, livestock farmers had every right to do so.

In the final analysis, however, Mr. Lynn's penchant for portraying corn farmers as the victims in both the ethanol saga and the RMP saga, is counter-productive isn't going to do anything to promote any sort of co-operation between corn farmers and other sectors of agriculture - he may want to, and should, re-think his position.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The live stock industry has never run out of corn
Basic econimics
they just had to pay the going price
Supply and demand
end of story
The fact that at times livestock did not like the price in a corn growers favor is part of life
No problem when I have to sell at distresed price than the crowing about what a deal they r getting and what r u going to do about it
Yikes when corn find another buyer its poor me how can you do that and use it to your advantge is the cry from livestock
Before we go into mandate spin
CBasic econimics every one is self centered and looks after themselves is the econmist code of conduct
What happens is reality not theory and how the real world works
Theroy is nice but in the real world it sreality that happens and been there done that as I suggest many others have been as well on both sides
Larry L

The real-world truth, as well as basic economic truth, is that as long as use of ethanol is mandated, ethanol, at any price for corn, is nothing more than a massive, and net-negative, transfer of wealth, jobs, and economic activity, from one sector of agriculture to another.

I can't make it any simpler, or more "real-world" than that.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Could grow your own corn as many feedlots do. Or rent, buy more farms as many more Hog farms have and continue to do in my area.

You work with numbers for some what of a living ? One would never thunk it !

Mr Thompson
I call BS and a crediabilty gap
We all have seen the rants name calling pox on posters etc etc for not sighning there name from you and discounting any crediabilty NOW we are all to accept annomous phone call support, in your favour For you
Let them post on here and sign there name and we will go from there
Thats the bar u have set for any crediabilty so live by it! To claim support
Larry Lynn

I thought it was published that ethanol only had maybe a 10 to 15 cent affect on corn price . Think it even came out from the no-longer GMC .
Oh well . Ethanol paid for Steve's car and ethanol keeps the price of premium gas down so he can afford to drive it .

Steve
Your example is a rather outlandish bending of the truth to be very kind
If u have and proof that ethonal alone has raised the price of corn by 2 dollars lets see it
If you are going to claim for example purposes only you are being very, pick your choise of words to mean to decive
Your fussy math and comparson do leave lots of doubt and.? what else is being exaggerated on by u

Larry

Sadly it seems both Grier and Thompson are both short in getting facts right . The production of beer and whiskey both produce ddg's/wdg's . Further one would think they both could not read the joke and get it right.

Now lets see how they can do at this ..... when reading the Lords Prayer , Is it Our Father or Are Father ?
Sighhhh

Exactly correct, you can not make good whisky from ddg's.

Why not put the corn through the livestock first, then use the ppp's(piggy poo poo) to make ethanol.

Raube Beuerman

Sorry Rube seems you have once more steped into PPP by being a follower
Manufactering involves starting with the base product and seperating out the most valuable to least valuabe
You do realise thats what all those manufactering plants using base products do, be steel or gas or corn etc right?
So your idea of starting at the tail end rather than the front to remove some value is a little at odds with most manufactering unless you are suggesting that the PPG is what you really wanted in the first place and has the most value in your mind
Certainly if PPG is your chosen product of value carry on and if placeing no value on your pork manufactering machine is your thing carry on by all means
Larry Lynn

So lets let the market decide which is the most important first use of that product-not the government, or some farm group.

Raube Beuerman

so Rube what part not correct?
The choise of what market gets made every day BY THE buyers
I sell my corn to a broker at a agreed price who takes a handle from the end user
I am only interesed in geting paid the agreed on price not who takes it or how it gets used
Beleive it or not one load may go to a ethonal plant the next 2 or 3 to a feed mill or the other way around
Point is same buyer with different customers
Unless Mr Thompson has changed horses thats the way it should be
my only interests are to cover my costs or make a few $$ if possible to stay in bussines
We will get into that latter in the econmics class I am sure, so pay attention there might be a test at the end of class :-)
Larry

The consumption of beer and/or whiskey is not mandated - and, if it was, dairy producers, for example, would be crying the blues because the consumption of milk would, all else being equal, decline.

Therefore, unlike ethanol, neither the beer industry nor the whiskey industry is definitionally net-negative for jobs and economic activity, as the dairy industry would be the first to point out if/when the mandated consumption of beer and whiskey cut into the consumption of milk.

Alas, and as always, the one never-ending constant in agriculture is the lengths to which those farmers on the receiving end of legislated entitlement will go to defend that entitlement.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

As some one with some Irsh in me
I enjoy a good joke and debate
Better still when it has a moral and fits into days recyle, reuse and return to the ground society
Take corn make whiskey drink andrecyle by watering the flowers and return to the ground to be reused :-)
Larry Lynn

Pork and Livestock farmers can whine all they want about SM and Ethanol.The truth is they have always been and always will be their own worst enemy.

They will never be able to break the cycle of low inventories/high prices followed by high inventories/low prices.Just look at some yo-yo historic hog prices and slaughter numbers,way before Ethanol was ever a factor! Its no wonder a number of financial instututions this summer were hedging on lending for Pork expansion, they have seen it all before!

I view it as a poor question...but hey...I guess you can ask anything.
Mr. Thompson's view on ethanol mandates are accurate and backed up by many others. There is no question that current ethanol policies are a huge transfer of wealth from one sector to another. I believe Kevin Grier puts it in the billions of dollars. We laymen would refer to it as "robbing Peter to pay Paul" and it's a good deal if your name is Paul...or Larry I guess.
His views on SM are accurate and backed by many other sources again and again...another example of "robbing Peter to pay Paul".
One thing I've noticed on this site is the harder others try to slam Thompson's views, the more ridiculous, comical and futile their arguments become...just read some of them!
D. Linton

So, a better question, what happens, when the current oversupply of feed grains and low grain prices accelerates the current livestock over expansion as happened several times before ethanol? Been there done that. Answer: the coming oversupply of livestock, results in super low livestock prices, resulting in more livestock “wealth transfer robbing Peter to pay Paul livestock subsidies” and “buyouts” to attempt to reduce oversupply. Furthermore, in my area it is the livestock guys who have been as guilty as anyone, if not more so, in bidding up land prices.

Have heard stories before where a hog farmer in Perth County gladly and joyously took payment for a farm from an SM neighbor ? Also claimed and hoped that they were going to be as generous when the sale of the other farms owned when ready too !
Seems some are not of the same thinking of how the money was earned when Peter's money went to Paul hog farmer .

Further Paul hog farmer cashed every cheque from gov that are public and Peter's funds and some Paul hog farmers took gov buy out programs also . So hog farmer Paul raises hogs and sells them which the public buys and pays for which transfers wealth back to Paul hog farmer then cries for gov money , gets it and then thinks it is not robbing Peter to pay Paul a second time ! Hhhmmmm

I actually thought it was a good.?
AS it will let Steve put foward what he supports and his soultions rather than the same old same old repeats
Certainly you can disagree and think its a poor ?
Kevin Grier worked, researched and wrote for the now defunct George Morris center
Not going to discount or say he does not beleive in what he writes or says however as always there is more than one side to the story
Grains farmers in Huron had him as a speaker a few years ago soon after his report came out
Guess its still up for debate who converted who or if any minds were changed
The most important part was respect was shown by everyone no name calling or derogarty remarks were used no matter what side of the debate those attending were on
Would be nice if the same could be said about some on this site !
Lots of studies out there, however using and refering to same one time after time still make for no stronger of a aggument or any more crediailty than the first time around.
I really don't think I am bashing Steve but it seems some need to defend him
I do find it rather comical some of the replies used by his defenders of anyone who disagrees
It is Steve who wants to drag everything back to bash SM and ethonal it seems no matter what
So why the surprice when some answer back.espically when told I am wrong and cranky :-)
I ALREADY admmited to being cranky when proded but wrong has yet to be proved to me :-)
Larry L

my appoligies
It was Al Mussel from George Morris center who spoke in Huron not Kevin G
Larry Lynn

Do all you farmers have a brain problem ,THE GENERAL PUBLIC are being ripped off by supply managed farmers ,that is the fact ! A long with all the other farmers that grow chemical enriched G M O TOXIC WASTE FOOD for the public to eat and become sick . All the farmers except ,the AMISH and TRUE ORGANIC GROWERS ARE THE ONLY FARMERS THAT FED CITIES WITH HEALTHY FOOD and deserve the price they receive ! The food facts speak for themselves CHEMICAL G.M.O. ENRICHED OR NATURALLY HEALTHY GROWN FROM AS CLOSE TO MOTHER NATURE AS YOU CAN GET ! THE PUBLIC NEED TO REJECT THE MODERN FARMERS METHOD OF GROWING TOXIC WASTE FOR THERE FAMILIES AND DEMAND GOVERNMENTS TO STOP USING FOOD AS A MEANS OF POPULATION CONTROL !! THE PUBLIC IS GETTING SMARTER NOT TO BUY FROM THE MODERN FARMER AND START GROWING IT THEMSELVES IN COMMUNITY GARDENS AND FROM THE FARMERS THAT STILL HAVE MORALS !! BILL DENBY

Low corn prices are bringing out the heavy ammunition in the form of ethanol supporters on the web and in the farm papers these days.

Lets review a few things.
1) Nobody is forced to grow corn
2) Nobody is forced to farm
3) Nobody is forced to pay absurd prices for farm land, the old farmers saying that you absolutely have to buy the neighbours farm at any cost is utter stupidity.
4) As long as ethanol mandates exist, it is impossible to argue that it does not distort markets.

I have no problem with crops destined for use as fuel, as long as it is not mandated. I am sure there is a price point where it is truly feasible, if oil is high enough, and the price of corn is low enough.

Raube Beuerman

Rube
1 no one is forcing anyone to buy corn,the fact that large hog barns and little acreage hog loops
based on cheap corn is a self inflicted injury
2 agree no one is forced to farm
3 no one is forced to buy farms,build barns, choices are made looking to blame someone else is a issue for sure for unrealistic econmic descions
4 price for G&O in ont is based on Chicago price
the US farmer thru there farm bill Support there Grain farmers thus allowing there livestock farmers cheap feed stock
There is US ethonal mandate
US CORN comes into Ont by the boat and truck load at asubside price and goes to feedmills that is a fact
Equity with US was asked for a long time and still is not avaiable
Even Steve beleived in that at one time
as long as corn moves in livestock moves out we are in a North America market
Basic econmics says do what u have to do if u want toremain in the game
Fact is right now lots of corn in north america to supply lifestock and ethonal at bargin price
Was 8$ corn to high yes is 3 $ to low yes
A happy medium so all in ag can make a living would be good for every one in Ont
There is more than enough blame to go around on all sides as to why this has not happened
Call me a dreamer but I would still like to think comon ground can be found at some point in the future
I will quite at that
There is much more I could say
Lets just move on and work for the future instead of rehash after rehash of the past
Larry Lynn

Agreed move on and work together for happy medium for all.
$8 corn was induced by mother nature.

Ethanol, only a thorn in the big oil and they will never let be more then what it is. Crude oil will always dominate and ethanol will always be the poor cousin, just beef farmers are to dairy farmers..

Sean McGivern

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.