Demand for Ontario chicken wings its way up

© AgMedia Inc.

Description (Tag): 

Comments

Get the wings from Brazil I tell you . BRAZIL !!
All good chicken wings come from Brazil .
Or maybe we GM a chicken to grow 4 wings and 4 legs . Might be hard to catch the speedy though !!

Word is if you eat chicken wings from Brazil you will develope a sudden craving to watch a soccer game !

With beef and pork in trouble, the increased demand for chicken may create a situation were the Canadian consumer gets even more screwed than usual.

The affordability of chicken for the Canadian poor can be measured by LICO-chicken; kg/year of chicken that a person/family with a Low Income Cust-Off ("LICO") can purchace. LICO is a measurement of the poverty level.

LICO-chicken has dropped by 16% between 1997 and 2011, the latest available data (see http://tinyurl.com/LICO-chicken ). That means that the poor can afford to buy 16% less chicken than previously, due to the price of chicken rising far faster than the income level of poor Canadians.

CFO and other provincial bodies have been increasing chicken prices at 3.56% per yr for the past 20 years; an increase of 201.3% overall

If CFC quota allocations are increased and fully used by CFO and others, the natural result is chicken prices will decrease.

Should CFO, CFC, and other provincial agencies be required to consider LICO-chicken data prior to automatically increasing their prices, or cutting quota allocations?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Since Chicken is outselling Beef and Pork at this moment,that would mean almost 0% of this Country's poor can afford Beef and Pork at this time.

I really don't think that is believable!

In your posting (http://betterfarming.com/comment/13183#comment-13183 ), you seem to be saying that you cannot believe that the Canadian poor cannot afford beef or pork, let alone chicken.

What facts do you have to back up your impressions, based on your personal circumstances?

I have presented facts derived from Statistics Canada and Ontario's Ministry of Labour (used to justify the increase in the minimum wage to $11/hr for the working poor).

If you don't believe my facts, where are your facts?

It is hard to discuss, resolve, and learn from personal opinions and preferences. Some people like chocolate ice cream, others vanilla or strawberry.

My facts, the government's facts, say meat in Canada is very expensive, and getting more and more expensive each month; far faster than the rate at which family incomes are rising. That means more and more people are forced to become vegetarians.

Chicken should be, and used to be the cheapest meat; "Meat for the Masses".

With the multi-millionaires running the Chicken Supply Management system, they seem to think that higher chicken prices are required, so they can get even more millions for themselves.

Do these millionaires consider the peasants living under their hereditary aristocratic rule (also known as Supply Management)?

Perhaps they should.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

So how then does the fact that the Gov Buy Local food push has our local food at a premium price . Are you now saying that people can't afford local fuits and veggies ?

What are the price differences for meat ( all meats ) in other counties ? Then compare that back to Canadian prices , Canadian wages , cost of doing business in Canada , the added cost of the regulations we must comply with and the subsidies that farmers get in other countries . I think you will find that Canadian farmers are at a disadvantage . Yes there are those in the beef , pork and other sectors that say "we can compete" . So why then are they so hell bent on select markets to other countries and not here at home . Why should local food be at a higher/premium price compared to imports ? It should be cheaper !

If nothing else the SM system though it is not what I would call perfect by any means does really show that there are stark differences in the cost of raising/producing food in this country compared to other countries arounf the world .

If chicken is soo high priced , why then are you not raising your 300 bird allotment and selling it at half the cost of SM raised chicken ? Prove that it works then you can stand at the pulpet and claim some facts ! Do you really think any thing Stats Can puts out is for real ? Ask any farmer what time and effort he puts into stats can surveys . I think you will find the information given to Stats Can is a guess and many times a lie at best .

In response to your posting "Price Comparisons" ( http://betterfarming.com/comment/13190#comment-13190 ):

Anything for which the government involves themselves will make it more expensive (rising demand in the market usually raises prices).

Food prices have been rising far faster than wages and other sources of family income. Canadians have been using their houses as piggy banks with HELOC's (Home Equity Line of Credit) issued by the banks so as to close the monthly shortfall. With the Canadian real estate bubble about to burst, that solution will soon come to an abrupt and catastrophic end. What then, as food continues to rise in price?

In 2011, 52.4% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their own home; an all-time high. Overall, more than 70% of families own their own home; another all-time high; higher than the comparable stat for US housing just before it crashed in 2007.

For those who don't own their own home, rental is now cheaper than home ownership, but that difference is insufficient to cover the rising cost of food. They have no home or HELOC, so renters have to scrimp and go vegetarian more and more days out of the month. For the working poor at or near minimum wage, it is even worse.

I have enough to do with looking at chicken. You or somebody else can volunteer to do the world-wide comparison of all meat and living prices. I cannot.

You say StatsCan data is faulty and untrustworthy. If someone lies on their StatsCan surveys, that is against the law. If the lie is inconsistent with others in the industry, StatsCan will discover the differences and investigate. Are you suggesting it's a conspiracy, where many or most farmers collude with the same or similar lie? I wonder why. Sounds like Supply Management at work.

Canadian farmers are at a disadvantage, for the most part, because they allowed themselves to be so positioned. This is especially true for SM farmers. As an example of this, chicken feed is about 60% of the total cost of raising a meat chicken. CFO claimed an FCR (Feed Conversion Ratio) of 2.0 for more than a decade, but in August 2013 had their FCR lie cut down to 1.72 by the government. Compare that to the 1.38 FCR of Tegal Poultry in New Zealand; 20% more efficient than CFO members. While abusing and poaching on Canadian consumers, Canada's SM chicken farmers have become fat, dumb, and happy as they add to their millionaire wealth.

As a Small Flocker, I am required to pay $18 per 25 kg bag of chicken feed (ie. $720 per tonne equivalent). Supply Management quota-owning factory chicken operations paid around $388.375 per tonne (quota period A-121), which means small flockers pay 85.4% more for their feed. Assuming feed costs are 60% of the total costs, and the other 40% of costs are similar for both small flockers and quota-boys, then small flocker farm gate chicken meat prices should be 11.23% higher than the factory farm prices (1.854 * 0.6= 1.1123 or 11.23% premium).

If CFO's regulation of 300 birds per year maximum is modified to 2,000 birds per year, my costs to operate will be dramatically lowered. That is what the SM millionaires are worried about. The 300 bird limit was designed to make it impossible to compete against them. With 2,000 birds per year, that will give each of the 15,129 Small Flockers in Ontario just 0.001% of the Ontario chicken market.

Currently, it is illegal in Ontario to prove 2,000 bird small flocks are feasible. Change the regulation, then I and some other Small Flockers will be more than glad to prove it feasible.

If we try the 2,000 birds per year and fail, it's our own money and time that we have wasted; hurting nobody but ourselves. Therefore what is the harm in allowing us to try?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

You forgot to mention that the average household debt in Ontario is $125,000.00 combined with a average household public debt of $63,000.00. How can you say those 25 year olds "own" their home today.
Farmers are disadvantaged today because of really high taxes and energy costs in this province. It is not their own doing as you say.
The average household spends 8% of their budget on food. Queens Park spends 8.4% of their budget serving debt.
Chicken prices should be the least of your worries.

why do you think it is easy to raise and market 2000 birds when you can't even raise 300 now?
stan holmes

You can get chicken on kijiji from farmers that do not own quota. Free range eggs on the honor system too. $4 a dozen or $4.25 a lb for meat. I thought non-quota chicken was suppose to be cheaper! So much for the rhetoric about SM ripping off 30 million consumers.
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-livestock/barrie/non-gmo-pasture-raised-chicken/5...

Tons of ads for chicken/eggs on kijiji

In you posting "Chicken on Kijiji" ( http://betterfarming.com/comment/13202#comment-13202 ), you question the sincerity of Small Flockers about affordable chicken.

The Kijiji price of $4.25/lb is equivalent to $9.35/kg. Is that Kijiji price from a small flocker, or a millionaire quota-based chicken producer trying to make even more money on the side? After all, they get just $1.792/kg for a live bird, which is equivalent to $2.61/kg for eviscerated chicken, so selling at $9.35/kg on the side would give them 358% greater markup than through CFO. I see why many CFO millionaires also sell chicken from their farm gate.

Under Section 10.(c) of CFO Regulation 2387-2002 "Small Flock and Farm Gate Marketing", it states: "all chicken shall be marketed at the premises and to purchasers who attend at
the premises and purchase the chicken for their personal consumption";

I understand that CFO interprets this Regulation as meaning that the advertising or selling of meat chickens at Farmer's Markets, putting up a sign anywhere off the farm, or a flyer posted on the coffee shop bulletin board, or offering for sale on Kijiji are all illegal.

In Dec 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the prostitution law as unconstitutional as it prohibited a prostitute from communicating for the purpose of selling sex, violating their constitution right of freedom of expression and speech.

CFO has banned Small flockers from communicating for the purpose of selling their chickens, so CFO must see us Small Flockers as being an even greater threat to society than prostitution.

In your life experience, does that make sense to you?

To me, it seems CFO has their priorities all screwed up, which is typical for Canada's Supply Management system.

I have previously posted that I am forced to pay $18 per 25 kg bag of chicken feed ($720 per tonne) for chicken feed. CFO states that the Supply Management quota-owning factory chicken operation recently paid around $388.375 per tonne for chicken feed (quota period A-121), which means small flockers pay 85.4% more for their feed. Assuming feed costs are 60% of the total costs, and the other 40% of costs are similar for both small flockers and quota-boys, then small flocker farm gate chicken meat prices should be 11.23% higher than the factory farm prices (1.854 * 0.6= 1.1123 or 11.23% premium).

In the alternative, if small flockers had greater strength in the market, they could easily produce chicken that was competitive with, or lower priced than the quota-based SM millionaires. That is obviously what worries these millionaires; losing some of their 99.96% market share they currently enjoy.

In Oct-Dec 2013, I did a retail chicken price survey (see http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2013/12/ontario-chicken-prices.... ) on Manitoulin Island, Sudbury, Toronto, and London ON where I found that chicken prices varied between $4.98/kg and $29.98/kg, with a median price of $11.00/kg.

Statistics Canada ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/econ155a-eng.htm ) gives the average retail price of chicken in April 2014 as $7.11/kg.

Therefore the Kijiji price of $4.25/lb., equivalent to $9.35/kg., is 31.5% higher than the StatsCan Canadian average, or 15% lower than the median price on the survey I did.

Pasture raised, no antibiotic chicken is obviously a premium product, which means it usually commands a premium price. In my price survey, an organic chicken was selling at $11.66/kg, which is 24.7% more expensive than the Kijiji chicken.

Small Flockers believe in freedom for the farmer and the consumer. CFO believes in power and privilege for themselves; tyrrany and oppression for consumers and Small Flockers.

If a Small Flocker wants to set his price higher or lower than the local grocery store, I believe that is his right, provided that Small Flocker provides full disclosure on the product he wants to offer for sale.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Maybe you should have read the ad. Whole chicken at $4.25/lb. is expensive.

Option # 1 – Whole Chicken - $4.25 per lb.

Whole Chicken individually bagged
Option # 2 – Pre-Cut Chicken - $5.50 per lb
4 Boneless, Skinless Chicken Breasts – Individually Vacuum Packed
4 Thighs
4 Legs
8 pieces Chicken Wings
1 Bag of Soup Bones
( minimum of 2 chickens for this option )

So what you are saying is even at 2000 birds you still can't compete and will always be higher priced . If you really want to prove your SF worth then why not get 7 people to each take 300 birds , buy your feed bulk and split it up and be happy and merry that you are now competing with the big boys .
When it comes to feed if you are going to buy it in bags you will pay a premium price . The other solution is to grow your own , grind it yourself and feed it .

You seem to really want to pick on SM for the price of their product , tell every one they are getting rich and ripping off poor people but still want to have the right to grow and sell a comparable product at a higher price . Do you not hear yourself ? You are proving more and more all the time that you really don't understand the ag industry . You can show all the figures you want but if you don't understand the how and why of the figures it does not really matter because you are not correct with how you are using the numbers .

If there is a will to raise your birds then there is a way . Stop crying about some one else making money by the system and get into the system and make the money for your self !

Yes you must follow the system

In your posting "Small Flock" (see http://betterfarming.com/comment/13197#comment-13197 ), you clearly raise some interesting points.

At 300 birds per year, nobody can raise a competitively priced chicken. I tried. It can't be done. CFO agrees. They say the 300 bird limit was not chosen to be commercially viable.

I believe that a 2,000 bird per year limit can make small flock chicken farming competitive with the quota-based chicken factories.

I agree with your Co-op model. Once the Regulations are hospitable, I hope to propose and encourage those types of community ventures all across Canada. Perhaps that is what CFO and the other chicken millionaires are worried about. I know of one farmer who is already organized a similar type of operation, thereby getting around the 300 bird limit. There are other remote regions where that cannot be done economically due to no local abattoir that does custom chicken processing; my situation exactly.

Small Flockers believe in freedom for the farmer and the consumer. CFO believes in power and privilege for themselves; tyranny and oppression for consumers and Small Flockers.

I suspect that only a few Small Flockers will choose to raise 2,000 birds per year. That is their right to choose. I suspect that Small Flockers will set their own prices; some higher than the local grocery store, some lower. Again, that is their right.

CFO and its millionaire members seem to have the mentality, plans, and power to charge as much as they can get away with; maximizing their personal fortunes.

I, and a growing number of citizens, feel that the powers of government shouldn't be used to hold the public hostage, nor abuse them. CFO should be putting significant effort into finding ways to lower the price of chicken for the good of all Ontario, rather than scheming for ways to gouge the consumer more and more, and line their personal pockets with gold.

Unfortunately, I live in a geographical area and a time where growing grain is marginal at best, and cannot compete with an already established professional grain farmer from elsewhere. The cost of land and farm equipment makes your suggested option of growing & milling my own feed economically impossible.

If I am able to get the Regulations changed, I plan to raise chicken at my cost + 10% profit. The 10% profit plan is so that Canadian Revenue Agency will agree that I have a reasonable expectation of profit, and so run a business, not a charity. In good years, that 10% profit can be available for re-investment in the farm, or gifting to the food bank, as I choose. In bad years, that 10% will go toward the unexpected costs that are incurred, to keep the operation going for another year.

Other Small Flockers may make different choices for themselves, as free people tend to do.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

You seem to have a real problem with keeping your eyes wide shut when it comes to farming .
You spout off like Foghorn Leghorn about how all of these chicken farmers are millionaires . Yes some of the are and some many times more than others but don't forget that many will have millions in debt also that they are paying off . You make it sound like get some chickens and your rich !

If you believe the 2000 bird limit can compete then lets see you do it . Don't give us the I believe drivel . Prove it !

Because you chose to move to a remote place and now don't have a close abattoir is your problem . There is some thing to be said for Location Location Location . Heck even you if you had bought your farm in a better place in the province could be called a millionaire just in your land holding . If you can't grow grain then why don't you raise your birds on grass and table scraps . I find it to more of an excuse that you say you can't grow grain when many places north of you are . It is suspect that you don't know how to .

Again "Location" is more important than you think when it comes to setting up a farm enterprise . You must be one that thinks natural gas is going to come down every sideroad in Ontario because a farm group said it is lobbying for that . Well truth be known it will get down some but likely not 50 or even 60 % of in the next 25 years . Years ago I looked into putting up a dryer and storage . One person had the smarts to tell me that the first thing I should do is have or look for a suitable spot where there was gas and 3 phase hydro . You can't blame some one else for your lack of planning .

With your claiming that chicken farmers are selling birds at the farm is just sour grapes . I bet you that every farm retail market garden in the province claims every dollar of every sale through the year in their books .

Talk to the kill plants and ask them if they would take birds from fifty 2000 bird flock farms at 100 birds a week for 20 weeks out of the year .

Not that I do not agree that SM needs an overhaul but you sound too much like an ex gov person that thinks you can farm from a text book or tell farmers how and what is best for them because your great grandma lived on a farm back in the late 1800's .

In your posting "Eyes Wide Shut" (see http://betterfarming.com/comment/13213#comment-13213 ), you raise some interesting points.

Statistics Canada data shows that chicken and egg farmers are the best paid of all farmers in Canada, $90,250 per year, 21.1% higher than the median farmer (see

Ontario chicken quota is said to currently sell for $105 per unit. The default minimum quota permitted by CFO is 14,000 units per farm. All quota that exists today was originally given to chicken farmers for free. That free gift for the smallest chicken farmer is now worth $1.47 million.

The largest chicken farmers in Ontario (ie. The Gorilla in the Chicken Coop) are estimated to hold as much as 196,501 units of quota, worth about $20.6 million. There is estimated to be about 142 of these Gorillas in Ontario's chicken coops

CFO reports that there is 35,818,018 units of Ontario chicken quota owned by 1128 farmers. That's an average of 31,753 units per farmer, which is worth $3.33 million on average.

Nice present from the government!

CFO reports that 196 million chickens were raised in Ontario in 2013 to produce 457.6 million live kg. (see
The capital cost of a new chicken farm is estimated to be $780,000 (not including quota cost) for 30,000 sq. ft. barn, which would produce 633,000 live kg of chicken per year (see

Scaling this to all Ontario, the Ontario chicken farms have a replacement value of $563.8 million, or $499,882 per farm on average. Adding that capital cost to the average quota value, the average Ontario chicken farm has a replacement value of $3.83 million.

I think there is more than enough evidence to call all of Ontario's chicken farmers multi-millionaires.

You think my eyes are closed. Are your ears open?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

In your posting "Eyes Wide Shut" (see http://betterfarming.com/comment/13213#comment-13213 ), you questioned my assumption about millionaire chicken farmer members of CFO. I answered that separately. Here, I'd like to respond to your other points.

I believe Small Flockers can compete on both price and quality with a 2,000 bird limit. As soon as that limit is changed, I am quite confident a few leaders in the Small Flock ranks will step up to the plate and start utilizing their new found freedom.

If the limit isn't raised, how do you suggest that Small Flockers prove it can be done when it is illegal to do so? I have already posted pro forma Cost Of Production data on 57, 300, and 2000 bird operations (see http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2014/05/small-flock-cost-of-pro... ). Is that the kind of proof you had in mind? If not, what will prove it?

If it impossible, why bother passing a law to make it illegal? That would be the same as an MP introducing a bill to make murder on the planet Pluto illegal. That is an impossible feat for humans of today, so why bother outlawing it?

Obviously, CFO has made it illegal because they know it is possible, and can quickly lead to a negative impact to their millionaire members and their hyper greed for more, more, and more.

Your analogy of natural gas and abattoir availability in rural Ontario is a valid one. Putting natural gas down every country road would cost billions or trillions of dollars. A logistic nightmare. Low cost natural gas + huge unaffordable gas distribution network= unaffordable natural gas.

If not gas, then high speed Internet for all of rural Ontario. The list is endless.

I have already given the Connecticut solution for Ontario; 7 mobile abattoirs operating from 128 sites throughout Ontario (see http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2014/01/connecticut-can-why-not... ). I would estimate a cost of $2.5 million for the 128 sites, and $1 million startup capital & expense for the 7 abattoir trailers, for a total of $3.5 million. This seem almost feasible, even for the ORNGE-EHealth-GasPlant screwup Liberal government.

What's more important: Feeding the people with affordable food, or allowing people to more quickly download the latest NetFlicks video while they have higher cost natural gas to heat their homes in winter?

Where are the sour grapes about CFO millionaires simultaneously walking both sides of the street (quota and non-quota)? It is either true or not true. It has been reported to me as occurring by first hand observers. Do you have facts to the contrary? If so, share them.

I believe in freedom. If a quota farmer sees an opportunity in both quota and non-quota, he is welcome to go after it as long as he does it fairly, openly, and honestly. Hopefully CFO and the entrepreneurial chicken farmers will someday feel the same towards Small Flockers.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I have responded to your posting Eyes Wide Shut (see http://betterfarming.com/comment/13213#comment-13213 ) via Part 1 and 2 on the separate issues you raised. This is Part 3.

I agree location is important. However, 90% of Ontario in North of the French River, home to 800,000 people. This isn't just a farm issue. All of those people need safe, nutritious, affordable food. They don't have that today.

Health Canada reports that 7.6% of Canadian families can't afford the food they need to feed themselves. Ontario, as a newly minted "Have Not" Province, is 11% worse than the Canadian average on food affordability. On First Nation Reserves, between 33% to over 50% of families have food insecurity. It's a growing problem. My local food bank reports a 75% increase in clients in just the last 3 years.

If people can't feed themselves, jobs, vehicles, schools, playgrounds, roads, healthcare, television etc. quickly lose their prior priorities and importance.

To me, one of the government's first and most important tasks is to ensure their people are able to feed themselves. Are we all in agreement on this issue? If not, please state your proposed alternative.

I have spoken to the hatcheries and the abattoir owners. All of them welcome the opportunity for the added business that could come from Small Flockers' freedom. For the abattoirs, rather than running their bird line just 1 week or 1 day a month, it could be scheduled to run full-time.

No, I am not a government person, never have been, probably never will be. Governments and I just don't think the same way; oil and water. It's probably good for everybody's sake that governments and I stay well apart; friends & acquaintances, but separate.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

You are missing the important things that need to be done . I am afraid there will be no helping you understand . Maybe you could talk to Sean's NDP buddy who does have quota and sells chickens from his farm gate . I have a feeling you are getting wrong or tainted info . Once you see past the supposed road blocks and get on with raising your birds and proving that there is a market that is not being filled then maybe you will be listened to at Farm Products and even CFO .
Once you get past the point of jealousy of every one with more supposed money than you it might be well worth your effort . You need to prove the want to share in the market , a market not being filled . Good luck in your venture but if you wait to get at it you will be old and past the drive of even wanting to do it .

This anonymous poster states "once you get past the point of jealousy of every one with more supposed money than you".

This anonymous poster has benefited from the most generous of socialist policies ever to pass in Ottawa.

But this anonymous poster has done little to deserve it.

The wealth that this anonymous poster has, was created by the consumer, before the government redirected it to this person who holds such a high opinion of him/herself.

Raube Beuerman

Sorry Rube . I am not in SM and have not benefited near as much from the Gov as what livestock farmers have since I started farming .
Just give me Equity with US Farmers .

So wrong you are .

Every non sm farmer dislikes sm they just can't say it and any sm how sells sone understands why

I think I'm like millions of other Canadians,my facts come from the local grocery store meat counter,the farmers market or any other local small meat processor/retailer... and certainly not from a Government website!

Allow me to reiterate,if your telling me that (from a current grocery flyer) 2.99/Ib chicken drumsticks and thighs or 3.49/lb whole chicken are too expensive for poor poor consumers in this Country then how can they possibly afford 5.49/lb lean ground beef or 7.99/lb beef stir fry strips or even 4.99/ pork side ribs ??..and that's not even getting into the real expensive cuts.

If you are going to quote Statistics Canada then l think you should be prepared to tell the whole story.The price of a sirloin steak has risen 12 percent, and pork chops are up 16 per cent in the past year. By comparison, overall inflation is just 2 per cent, or 1.9 per cent for a broad range of food.Some urban consumer reports have compared the rise in Beef and Pork prices this spring to the annual gas hikes just before a long weekend.

On a recent visit to the St.Jacobs Farmers Market,were the fresh meat counters are always busy,we found the chicken counter surprisingly 4-5 people deep.Just more evidence if more people are turning Vegetarian it won't be because of Chicken prices.

Meat might be more expensive today but lets put a few things in perspective.

The average household spends 8% of their income on food. Food that include eating out. Food freedom day in Ontario this year was Feb. 7.

The average household spends 42% of their income on taxes. All kinds of taxes. While tax freedom day in Ontario was declared on June 9, it is really misleading. Ontario is piling on debt on each household which is expected to be $63000.00 next year.
I say, stock up on chicken while its still cheap but not as cheap as a soup and bread line.

Please do not confuse the simple fact that food freedom day numbers include food, beverages ( alcohol ) and tobacco . So even the food freedom day figures are not representitive of food and only food .

In your post "Comparing Household Costs" (see http://betterfarming.com/comment/13194#comment-13194 ), you raise Food Freedom Day as an example to defeat my arguments for affordable food.

It is my understanding that Food Freedom Day is calculated by taking the average annual food expenditures per Canadian, dividing it by the average annual income of Canadians, then multiply by 365 days per year, producing the # of days from Jan 1st at which the average person has earned enough to buy the average groceries.

Seems pretty simple and useful, until you look deeper. All of those data are highly skewed distributions. In other words, there is a huge difference between what a billionaire eats vs. a single parent with 3 kids living on welfare. Same goes for skewed incomes. Average in just one billionaire with 20 million working stiffs, and you will have a huge jump in the average income.

Food Freedom Day, for those reasons, is nothing more than a propaganda piece used to silence critics and distract the media and public from an important issue.

If Food Freedom Day was calculated using median data rather than averages, it would be an important statistic that could lead to understanding and action to improve the situation. Of course, that is exactly what the users of Food Freedom Day do not want.

Medians find the person in the middle of all 38 million Canadians, from the poorest person to the multi-billionaires. The median person changes very little when you add a few billionaires to the calculation. That is why median data are powerful indicators.

The other possible statistic is LICO (Low Income Cutoff, the annual earnings of someone on the verge of poverty) divided by a commodity price. If that statistic goes up over time, it means the person on the verge of poverty (ie. living at LICO) can afford to buy more and more of that commodity, in spite of being on the verge of poverty, which is good for the poor. If that statistic trends down over time, it means that commodity is becoming less and less affordable for the poor.

I have done the calculation for LICO-chicken (see http://tinyurl.com/LICO-chicken ), which shows chicken becoming 16% less affordable in the 14 year period of 1997 - 2011.

I have also done the calculation for affordability of chicken for someone living on minimum wage (see http://tinyurl.com/MinWageChicken ) which showed a 31.7% drop in chicken affordability between 1995 and 2005.

Who will do the calculation for milk, cheese, butter, eggs, and turkey?

Will SM supporters consider these data before they continue supporting Supply Management forever, no matter the cost or hurt that this crazy system is causing Canada and Canadians?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I can go right now to my local grocery store and buy fresh whole chickens for $1.88/lb. but boneless cross rib roast AA is $6.99/lb.
Go figure. Time to fill the freezer again.

In reply to "Fresh Whole Chickens" (see http://betterfarming.com/comment/13232#comment-13232 ).

You say these are fresh, whole chickens at $1.88/lb. Could you please provide the following info:

1. Store name and city.
2. Are these Canadian raised, or foreign imports?
3. Are they spent hens (former egg layers or roosters)?
4. What are the typical weights of the chickens (ie. broilers or roasters)?
5. What is the CFIA Plant # where they were processed?
6. What is the expiry date on the chicken (a few days before they go stale, some stores offer deep discounts of 50% or more off, so they aren't stuck with spoiled meat that must be thrown out)?
7. Is this an advertised special in a flyer distributed in the local area (could be a loss leader to attract customers)?
8. Brand name on chicken (eg. PC, MapleLeaf, MapleLodge, BlueGoose, PilgrimPride, Tysons, etc.)?
9. Other specifications & features (eg. fresh never frozen, previously frozen, air chilled, organic, pastured poultry, free range, grain fed, etc.)?

THANK-YOU FOR YOUR EFFORT AT SUPPLYING THIS IMPORTANT INFO FOR OUR CHICKEN DATABASE

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

What does it matter what other places are selling chickens for since you will be selling premium priced chicken . The poster gave you results of real prices and you still don't believe it . Want to track it down for your data base that really does not matter to your premium priced market that you don't even have yet . If they are being sold as lost leaders are you yourself going to have lost leader sales when you sell your 300 chickens or you want to sell 2000 chickens ?

Foodland special. Who cares about anything else. A chicken is a chicken. I was in a asian food store recently and saw the boneys chickens on sale. Most were dark yellow skinned but there were black skinned boney chickens too. To each their own!

Whole chicken is on sale at Foodland stores for 1.88 a pound. Fresh chickens.

That means other stores like Walmart, No Frills, etc. will match that price if you show the flyer. Food shoppers do stock up on specials to stretch their budgets. Who buys meats at regular prices when there is some kind of special each week?

Makes ya wonder why only the big push against chicken . Turkeys seem to be flying under the radar ! Why ?? Maybe they eat too much feed or don't have the market share .

What a foolish post. I just looked at the online flyer, if it was Canadian chicken, you can bet it would say so. This will be some that comes in under the 4% or whatever, tariff free. I also saw the American milk, chocolate flavor, on for $1 each. No blue cow.

We can be thankful for our American wealthy lightly subsidizing the price of food, and even reaching out to Canadian familes by letting it come across the border.

We can also be thankful for our Canadian wealthy, and corporations, for lightly subsidizing our beef, pork and grains at times of poor prices, although sometimes not at all, when prices are strong like now.

Supply management, why must you always be subsidized?

Raube Beuerman

So, it might be American. People like you carry on about American milk all the time but now have the moral compass to draw a line on chicken? Give me a break! No one cares where our meat or pruduce comes from. If we did there wouldn't be imports from China. Point is Foodland is selling whole fresh chickens at 1.88. Other major stores will either beat or match that price and we will stock up on cheap meat.

Yes people shop with their wallet . You would think that some posters would applaud the fact of cheap imports with all the bashing happening here . But no we get more retoric . The reason the where and who question was asked was so they could tell all their friends to stock up and save the gas driving across the border . Does sort of go against the Tiny Flocker support for their sales though . I would be that he has already sent his wife to the store to stock up .

In your posting "Cheap Chicken" (see http://betterfarming.com/comment/13252#comment-13252 ), you assume my purpose for asking for details on the cheap chicken was to rush to the store and buy some.

Your assumption has no basis in fact.

The more I learn about chicken factories (whether quota-based in Canada, or from elsewhere in the world), the more and more I refuse to eat that pseudo-food.

The purpose of asking for detailed info about the chicken is that I have established a database on Ontario retail chicken (see http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2013/12/ontario-chicken-prices.... ). The data was requested so that it can be added to that database.

With CFO being so secretive, it is hard to divine what they are up to next in their self-serving schemes. Spotting trends and critical incidents in the retail chicken quality, cost, and features will help discover what CFO is secretly up to next.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Sorry but your assumption or lack of clairity on the postings has you wrong .
I was posting back to a post that was a response to a post from Rabe .
That is one thing about this board , most every down with SM supporter assumes that there is a evil knife comming from every post . You few are so wound up about your drive to end SM that you can't see the forest for the trees . Really now Don't have a cow man !!

That is so amazing that you can check on-line to determine fresh whole chickens are american produced! Then have the chutzpah to belittle the poster even though you obviously did not go to the grocery store to confirm your supposition. Bottom line, chicken is on sale in one grocery chain and that means, it can be bought at other chains with the price match system. By your contention, all chains are selling cheap american chicken this week. I find that really hard to believe.

Would the same apply to pork if US pork was being sold as a lost leader here ? Me thinks the Ontario pork producer would be telling every one they should be supporting home grown Ont pork .

The usda pork could be from canada so why would we complain that is what a free market is all about

A lost leader would be someone like Tim Hudak or the Chairperson of a supply managed marketing board - a loss leader is a retail product deliberately priced at a loss in order to build traffic in the hopes of "leading" customers to buy other higher margin products.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Amazing what little thing a person can purposely do to get a rise out of you . Glad to see you didn't miss it .
Yuk Yuk !!

Comment modified by editor.

As usual you are wrong, Beuerman, yet again. I have a whole fresh chicken roasting in the oven now. Paid 1.88 a pound. I went straight to the head of the Meat Department to ask about those whole fresh chickens. Canadian chickens through and through. Not american chickens. And the chocolate milk is Sealtest. Thats not american milk.

I think its time for you to apologize for your "foolish" posting and making wild assumptions.

There are truckloads of milk that come across the border, packaged by Canadian processors and sold in Canadian stores. If the blue cow symbol is not there, its not Canadian. And by the time you read this post, you'll be on the throne passing that American chicken you enjoyed so much. Not that there is anything wrong with American chicken.

Raube Beuerman

So you are saying that not only does Sealtest use american milk in their products but the head of the meat department did not tell the truth about the source of their chickens?

One of my customers, a truck driver, told me how he had been sent to Ohio for a pickup of eggs. When the eggs were loaded onto his truck, he could not help but notice they were in their finished packaging, which read 'product of Canada'.

They were then delivered to Elmira for final re-distribution.

Now if you were to walk up to anyone in the store and ask if these were American or Canadian eggs, what do you suppose the answer would be?

Ahhh but you must know the county of birth of the chicken pig etc. Several Ont hog loops bred Canadian sows and the piglets were shipped to the US to be fed US subsidized corn.

The understanding was these were Canadian born pigs (with Canadian passports) sent to finishing school, probably much like those chickens that had traceable Canadian ancestry as first generation eggs.

I say we should seize their passports on leaving the country...

Bulk truckloads of milk can only cross the border for processing and sale in Canada if they pay the tariff of about 200%. This of course is not viable.

The TRQ for fluid milk is deemed under the NAFTA agreement to be accounted for by cross-border shopping of milk in consumer packages.

Many truckloads of milk cross the border under the IREP (import for re-export program) which permits processing in Canada but requires the export of the equivalent volume of milk and components back to the country of origin in this case the United States.

Many truckloads of liquid whey also cross the border tariff-free in both directions.

Similarly, truckloads of MPC's and MPI's (milk protein concentrates and milk protein isolate's respectively) meeting certain specifications can cross the border tariff-free both directions.

All of these milk products and byproducts are transported in bulk milk tanker trucks which those not knowledgeable of details of the industry often wrongly assume always and only carry raw milk.

So I guess the good news is, you are not the only person to get this wrong.

All fluid milk processed and packaged by Canadian processors for sale in Canadian stores is from Canadian farms.  Not all processors (Saputo) support the blue cow logo program but their fluid milk is still Canadian even though it does not carry the blue cow. The blue cow program is also really mainly for processed products and not fluid milk in any case.

Glad to help!

Now I've seen it all - an unsigned posting, which by definition has no evidentiary value at all, claiming a signed posting has no evidentiary value.

I just can't understand why people are so-moronic to think that anything without a signature is of any merit whatsoever.

The bigger issue is that if the unsigned posting has anything to say, it's that supply management has screwed things up so much, it's no wonder Ontario consumers are paying what even DFO admitted in late 2010, was almost 38% more for milk than US consumers, and it's also no wonder why Chobani fled to, and why increasing numbers of consumers regularly flee to, the US rather than deal with the byzantine rules of, and high costs imposed by, supply management.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Wow, so we know yet again that signed doesn't mean a post is valid or correct.

The post titled "Wrong Raube" simply showed Raube was wrong about fluid milk and the blue cow logo. Raube's "response" titled  "You're awfully naive" did not seem to provide valid counters to any of the points. It didn't even seem connected at all.

Saying "it is well known" does not provide any proof any more than the equally feckless "by definition" usage that others use to feign proving their points.

The evidentiary value crack was obviously ironically referencing that a signed post can be completely wrong and that all information can be judged for it's accuracy and logic.

Guess the irony was lost on some, or perhaps some of us think irony is the opposite of wrinkly.

I have been following Stephen Thompsons many attempts to bring some credibility into the discussion he on this website.
For years I have been troubled by the anonymous postings blaring out insults and " facts" which apparently should speak for themselves. They do speak for themselves in the sense that they should be ignored because if people have no guts to stand by what they are writing what value has the discussion.
SM had it's time. SM has not prevented the demise of the family farm. SM has prevented a creative approach for new markets.SM has indeed created a scary division amongst farmers. SM Has a scary hold and control on politicians. SM has created a socialist control system within a capitalistic environment. SM has taken the hope out of young farmers to start with a new approach in agriculture. SM has become a club of "chosen" farmers blinded to the reality of what a consumers want and needs.
It is indeed beyond imagination how money has corrupted the original idea of SM. Anybody who cloaks himself with arguments that this has protected the farming community from the terrible fate American farmers have endured is blinded by the visual reality of thousands of small farms falling down and a few dairy and chicken palaces of absurd proportions dominating the rural landscape.
The rural landscape exposes the illusion we are in. When SM eventually will be dismantled it is not because of raw milk or people like Stephen Thompsonn or others questioning the validity of SM, it will fail because of the arrogance of those who live the illusion of entitlement.
Thank you Steven for continuesly reminding us that IF you have something to say with honesty and integrity stand by it and sign your name.

Michael Schmidt

.....but the SM form is the worst type. The point is that there is no socialistic market tool to bring fairness into a capitalistic system that rewards exception.

Raube Beuerman

...and yet you choose to immigrate to Canada,knowing our Supply Management system.

What,you thought you could change it to your own liking ?

The arrogance of dairy and poultry farmers emanating from their unwarranted, unearned, and yet all-powerful sense of entitlement is exactly why our "voiceless" younger, non-supply managed farmers detest supply management with a passion, and why supply management, and the comments of the anonymous rabble who defend it on this site, won't be missed at all.

The opinions expressed by Mr. Schmidt are what I hear all the time when I go to various events and have people seek me out to thank me for what I am doing to make people aware of the evils of supply management, and the schisms it is causing in the farm community. If anything, the wretched excesses of many quota holders are increasing at a breath-taking rate, and are, in some communities, of staggering proportions.

The continuing inability of the anonymous rabble and riff-raff on this site to do anything to defend supply management except resort to "shooting the messenger" is amply demonstrated by the anonymous posting below which, in effect, asked Mr. Schmidt why he moved to Canada if he knew supply management was so bad.

Thank you, Mr. Schmidt, for pointing out that we do, indeed, have a visual reality of thousands of semi-successful farms in the midst of "a few dairy and chicken palaces of absurd proportions".

As anyone familiar with Dickens will immediately appreciate, this huge, and unsustainable divide in our farm community evokes the image of the opening words of A Tale of Two Cities - "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times".

Yet, even though it's fairly obvious that supply management will eventually be gleefully torn apart by the rest of the farm community, rather than just somehow simply "dismantled" in a bloodless coup, dairy and poultry farmers still labour under the delusion that supply management is well-liked and net-positive.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

It is not really a surprise that accolades for you are rare. It is surprising is that anyone would see this accolade from Schmidt as a positive thing.

Under most circumstances a signature adds value. Signed posts do give the advantage of giving two ways to judge the credibility. The content and the signature.

Read the two posts above and you can see how everyone can judge the contents from signers like Schmidt, Denby, Thompson, Black and Beuerman.

Regular readers can see the similarities and we can value their contributions accurately.

I am sure you know the situation in your homeland with the upcoming expiration of dairy quota's.
Smaller dairy farms in Germany are rapidly disappearing, and with EU quotas on milk production set to expire next year, the process is likely to accelerate. The only way to survive is to turn cows into machines and keep them away from the meadow.
Last year, some 3,300 dairy farmers gave up. The total number of farms falls by roughly half every 10 years. Only those farms that grow larger, produce more and become as efficient as possible have a chance at surviving.

So appearently having a Quota-less system does nothing for the small time farmers!

I suggest that the only reason you dislike Canada's Supply Management is that it goes against your unrestricted (illegal) "niche" market of selling unpastueurized milk, it has nothing to do with young farmers and small farms but more about your own personal agenda.

If the above member of this site's anonymous rabble and supply management propaganda squad was to check the stats, I think he/she will find that the number of dairy farms in Canada has declined by about 90% since supply management was adopted - therefore the argument that "a quota-less system does nothing for the small time farmers" is nonsense, especially when compared to the stats showing that supply management has done substantially-less than nothing to save small-time Canadian dairy farms, while, at the same time, creating the visual dichotomy of supply managed palaces amidst the comparatively-humble abodes of their neighbours.

More to the point, if supply management did anything at all for young farmers, the various supply management marketing boards wouldn't be falling all over themselves in a desperate attempt to pat themselves on the back while stabbing aspiring farmers in the back by offering the legitimized cash-flow suicide schemes known as "new-entrant" programs.

Once again, and as always, the perpetual half-truths proffered by, and "shoot-the-messenger" tactics utilized by, anonymous supply management supporters in a futile attempt to hang on to their legitimized ability to plunder consumers and be financial bullies in the farm community, is why supply management is not well-liked and why it will not be missed.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I guess it becomes an opinion of what constitutes a small dairy farm.

Herd sizes have tripled in Canada during almost 50 years of Supply Management,from 25-30 cows to 78 cows/farm,where herds sizes in the US have grown from that same 25-30 cows to 188 cows per/farm, a growth of over 3 times what it has in Canada.
With your superb accounting skills you have to admit that 78 is way smaller than 188.A simple comparison of numbers would signify that Supply Management favors the smaller dairy farms.

Thank you for pointing out that supply management is net negative for jobs and economic activity.
If IOGO is using dairy proteins, as per a Globe and Mail article "Canadian dairy farmers skirt supply management rules" and marketing that product as all Canadian, then how can you say with certainty that all milk is Canadian.

It is well known that processors and other certain groups love to obtain the import permits for the amount of dairy product or poultry that is permitted to come in tariff free, as it is easy money.

Raube Beuerman

Dear Mr Black,

Your comments appear to imply that farmers set the prices that consumers pay. Last time I checked, farmers do not sell to consumers. They sell to primary processors who in turn sell to retailers, food service companies, value-added food manufacturers, etc. Consumers buy their chicken from retailers and restaurants for the most part. Farmers have no say whatsoever on what a retailer or a restaurant charges their consumer. The price the consumer pays is mostly from demand, competition, retailer mark-up, restaurant mark-up, etc.

I'm not sure that you are making a sound argument when you say that the consumer is getting screwed when the farmer price for chicken is increasing. I'm sure chicken consumers appreciate you sticking up for them but maybe you should share your concerns with retailers and restaurants?

In your posting "License to Post Flawed Arguments" ( http://betterfarming.com/comment/13203#comment-13203 ), you complain that I have erred when I hold chicken farmers responsible for rising retail chicken prices.

I agree that Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") set the minimum farm gate price of live chicken.

I trust that we can also agree that retailers set the price of chicken sold on the grocery store shelves. Sometimes grocery stores will sell chicken as a "lost leader", advertised below their cost so as to attract shoppers to their store. Selling below cost is a short term fluctuation, and cannot be counted upon by consumers who must eat every day, and usually shop once or more per week.

Under Ontario's Farm Products Marketing Act, marketing is defined as "including advertising, assembling, buying, financing, offering for sale, packing, processing, selling, shipping, storing and transporting and “market” and “marketed” have corresponding meanings".

That seems pretty well inclusive of everything. Under the Act, powers can be delegated and/or vested in Local Boards, CFO being the local board for chicken. That delegating and vesting of government powers was done for CFO under ON Regulations 402/1990, 403/1990, and 421/1990.

If CFO has been given the powers to act, but chooses not to do so, are they still responsible for what occurs? If the driver of a car has been given a steering wheel and responsibilities for safe driving under the Highway Traffic Act, and decides to not turn the wheel, and thereby runs somebody over, is the driver responsible for killing the pedestrian they ran over?

I suggest that CFO is responsible for what they do, as well as what they could have done, and chose not to do.

Why would CFO fail to act?

I believe that the millionaire members of CFO are well aligned with the millionaire owners of chicken processing plants, Association of Ontario Chicken Processors ("AOCP"), distributors, holders of chicken import and export licenses, and everybody else who eats from the same trough. They all dine at the "all-you-can eat trough" that the consumer is forced to fill and re-fill again and again; all run as a hereditary aristocracy at the orders (or lack of orders) issued by CFO.

I believe that the smaller abattoirs, often represented by Ontario Independent Poultry Processors (OIPP) or Ontario Independent Meat Processors (OIMP) are ignored, abused, or punished by CFO for the most part. For example, they get starved out of chicken supply (witness CAMI and others just like them) by special deals between CFO and AOCP.

I agree that there is no direct control of retail chicken prices by CFO, as retailers can do loss leader sales below their cost, but CFO has an extremely powerful indirect effect on the retail price of chicken.

If you still doubt that, look back again at the powers over Ontario chicken that CFO was given by Regulation:

"... including advertising, assembling, buying, financing, offering for sale, packing, processing, selling, shipping, storing and transporting...".

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I thought you might have also pointed out, when you were referring to the car and driver analogy, the identical nature of the idiotic "farmers don't screw consumers, retailers do" argument and the equally-idiotic argument proffered by the US-based National Rifle Association - "guns don't kill, people do".

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

First thought that came to mind was that steering wheel could get passed around the car . Since when does a driver get given a steering wheel . The driver usually takes the seat behind the steering wheel !

Claiming that because consumers buy their food from retailers, rather than from farmers, somehow farmers can be absolved of any "screwing" of consumers, is nothing but the worst kind of disenginuous and misleading argument, and typical of the one-sidedness of all arguments proffered in favour of supply management.

I can't figure out why, or even how, supply management supporters continue to ignore figures such as those coming from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario in late 2010 which showed that the farm gate price of milk in Ontario was within pennies per liter of the US retail price - I mean, really, how can anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size not be able to figure out that Ontario consumers are getting screwed on the price of milk, and it's being done almost entirely at the farm level?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Insulting people to drive home a point is always useless. But after all your dribble you always forget to mention that domestic use USA milk, the milk cross border shoppers buy, is heavily subsidized by american tax payers.

As always, you and the rest of the anonymous rabble completely, and deliberately, forget that US taxpayers include corporations and estates, neither of which are consumers - thereby allowing the funding of the US dairy system to be on a progressive tax basis while the Canadian dairy system is funded on a regressive basis, with the poorest group of consumers paying disproportionately the most.

In addition, you and the rest of the anonymous rabble continue to studiously, and deliberately, ignore the fact that the US dairy system doesn't pit farmers against each other, and it doesn't allow US dairy farmers to be bullies in the farm community.

Furthermore, you and the rest of the anonymous rabble just can't seem to fathom the basic economic principle that the multiplier effect of low consumer prices for milk in the US, goes a long way to helping generate the income taxes (at all levels of the economy) used to fund US dairy programs, while high consumer prices for milk in Canada are, by definition, net-negative for jobs and economic activity - meaning less tax revenue.

More to the point, anonymous posters always deserve to be insulted because their comments, by definition, have absolutely zero evidentiary value, and because anonymous posters and a wilfully-abysmal understanding of basic economic issues, have a high degree of correlation.

It's like this - everyone has every right to insult any, and every, anonymous poster who twists basic economic truths for the purpose of defending something which is, by definition, net negative for jobs and economic activity.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

A shallow and selective understanding of economics that comes with an undergrad Ag Ec degree from
the cow college plus a lack of understanding of one's own limitations are a dangerous combination.

My understanding of economics is what every student must know in order to pass even the most-basic post-secondary course in economics.

Secondly, my understanding of economics is what every MBA student at the University of Western Ontario had to know in order to pass the economics courses we took there - and as arguably Canada's best business school, it is definitely NOT a cow college.

Thirdly, my understanding of economics is what everyone who is prepared to sign their name when giving opinions about economics must know.

I'm completely right about the evils of supply management, and then some - the problem in agriculture in Canada today is that there are too many supply management supporters who know nothing about economics, as is continually evidenced by their inabilty to remember their names when posting their scatter-brained opinions on this site, and who are dismissive to those who do.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

People are not dismissive of all posters on this site. Just when it is appropriate to do so. On balance, two or three regular signed posters are generally dismissed and extremely tiresome. Surprisingly, most observers generally find the unsigned posts to be better reasoned, more professional and certainly better mannered.

Anyone who attaches any credibility to any unsigned post, especially the one above, is as dumb as cement, period.

In addition, any reader who thinks unsigned posts to be "better reasoned" wouldn't be able to "reason" his/her way out of a room with open doors on every sides -

Let's face it -the reason people don't sign posts is because they:

(A) are "trolls" who work for supply management and/or who have so much quota they can't think for themselves
(B) don't know what they are talking about, especially when it comes to basic economics
(C) just like to belittle people who aren't afraid to sign their names.
(D) are outraged that people are finally starting to realize that supply management has turned dairy and poultry farmers into financial bullies in the farm community.

People who don't sign posts deserved to be trashed, at every opportunity, and severely so - the epitome of bad manners and unprofessional conduct, is to offer an unsigned opinion regardless of how "politely" and/or how "professionally" this anonymous opinion may appear to be expressed.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Most site visitors obviously disagree with you.
If I have to choose between risking my part-time job and signing my name that's an easy one.
My posts are always polite and I like to think I add value to the discussions.
Ideas stand on their own. I will concede that many are easily influenced by celebrities who pontificate on causes. That's not a good thing though.

It may well be your opinion that every unsigned post is from a dumb person . That still does not negate the fact that the opinion expressed by a sign poster is correct and factual either . I am sure we all have read signed posts and letters to the editor that were signed by people a pickle or two short of a jar .

Many people make decisions based on who said something rather than what was said. I think that's one reason we see so much polarization. Some people vote a certain way because their family, friends or neighbours do. In an ideal world we would focus on specific ideas and not on an individual or political party.

Could you please explain how American milk is subsidized ? Was not aware that it was . Now Canadian milk is not subsidized . The buyer here just pays the market price .

To the best of my knowledge, when one country (the USA) heavily subsidizes and exports a product to a competing country that subsidizes its same product very little it is deemed to be "Dumping". Dumping can be countervailed. So, on the one hand the USA gets away with dumping heavily subsidized corn plus milk into Ontario even when challenged with countervail action because Ontario livestock want access to heavily subsidized U.S.A corn. However, on the other hand Ontario heavily subsidizes pork and beef then exports it to the USA where pork and beef receive very few subsidies which has in the past initiated countervail. Did I mention "sometimes" political B.S. gets in the way of a fair resolution to the dumping and countervail problem because in the end it IS all about the "money" honey. The solution of course is to have a totally integrated N.A. ag industry including pesticides and production subsidies if any.

To the best of my knowledge the subsidized hydro that we in ontario produce and sell to US states could also be considered dumping . The only thing that is worse to the best of my knowledge is it does not make economic sense to subsidize these wind and solar panels on the backs of the taxpayer and watch industry leave the province .

Also to the best of my knowledge a certain Organized Farm Ag group refused to ask for and get an independent study done when passed and asked for by a large majority of their members . To the best of my knowledge that is not working for or representing your member concerns .

Your right one system it's called free trade

Free Trade is a myth,always has been and always will be!

YES! Free trade is a myth...HOWEVER. Since we already have an Integrated meat and grains trade arrangement between the USA and Canada save and except for the SM sandbox discussion, the ultimate would be to have similar policies re: pesticides and subsidies for the grains and livestock sectors, as well as, for fruit and veg and hort. I suspect this integrated similar policy and subsidies may just burst the bubble of some commodities "piggy bank" but so be it. If the shoe fits you had better be prepared for the next step.

So, just curious Stephen, however, would no supply management mean that we would most likely have more dairy cows, chickens and turkeys in Canada?

Don't fool yourself that a government forced cartel isn't screwing the consumer Jack. Restrict supply to drive the prices up and outlaw competition. So much for a free country. Nothing like a bunch of backslapping politicians and their connected business buddies to screw over the average Joe.

The proposition that because supply managed farmers do not sell directly to retailers and restaurants, they are entirely blameless for the high retail price of dairy and poultry products in comparison the prices paid by US consumers, is nonsense.

This argument, although completely bogus, has been the staple of supply management propagandists for over four decades, and is just as misleading now as it ever was.

For example, there is no possible way that when the Dairy Farmers of Ontario published information in late 2010 showing that the farm gate price of milk in Ontario was within pennies per liter of the US retail price, and that the retail price of milk in Ontario was almost 38% more than the US retail price, for anyone to conclude anything else but that Ontario dairy farmers are screwing Ontario consumers.

What is it about the obvious fact that supply management screws consumers, and screws them badly, can supply management supporters not accept?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

In response and addition to "The Flawed Logic..." http://betterfarming.com/comment/14385#comment-14385

There appears to be significant "riding of the SM coattails" by Big Ag and Big Food.

SM farmers are guaranteed a "reasonable profit" under SM. Big Ag and Big Food realized a long time ago that if they push all or most of their expenses onto the SM farmers as much as possible, the SM farmer won't complain (or complain a lot less than others) because they automatically get reimbursed, no matter what costs are foisted upon them. Also many of the SM farmers are "owned" (in more ways than one) by Big Ag and Big Food, so complaining to their overlords is frowned upon, and most wise SM farmers play along.

For example, there has been huge growth in vertical integration in, around, and through SM, where feed mills, dairy farms, milk trucks, dairies, and secondary users of dairy products have been merged and amalgamated to huge multi-national conglomerates, or they have exclusive agreements, or excessive influence akin to "Wash my back, I'll wash yours, or else...".

The same has occurred in the SM chicken system.

For example, SM feeds have risen 60% in cost when non-SM feeds went up by just 20% in the same time period. SM feed producers buy up quota, then sell it to the new or expanding SM farmers, provided that farmer agrees to buy all of their feed through the mill that is selling the quota (see the SFPFC Blog posting of May 4, 2013 "Chicken Feed Price Conspiracy"

All of this jacks up the retail price of SM food, making it less and less affordable. It is the consumer who pays for all these sweetheart deals.

For example, someone who earns minimum wage in Ontario has suffered a 31.7% drop in the affordability of chicken in the last 10 years due to these SM shenanigans (see the SFPFC Blog June 17, 2014 posting "Unaffordable Chicken In Ontario")

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

So you are telling us that if I call the local mill and say I want to buy some corn to feed my hogs I will pay less than if I tell them I want to feed it to chickens ?
I think you are living in a paradise that is lacking of oxygen .

In response to SM & Feed Costs http://betterfarming.com/comment/14392#comment-14392

The data that I refer to is from Statistics Canada, which provides price indexes for various feeds (see Statistics Canada CANSIM Table 329-005, BF will no longer allow a direct html link to the table, so you'll have to search for it using Google).

The relevant StatsCan data runs from Jan. 1961 to Oct. 2013. All the feeds started out at about the same price, and generally tracked upwards together until around 2007.

Big Ag has jacked up the price of feed for swine, dairy, beef and chicken; all of the farm feed categories available from StatsCan.

Farm feeds are up 60% since 2002, but cat & dog food is only up 20%. Note that cat & dog food, which is also made with virtually the same ingredients as farm feeds (corn, wheat shorts, soybean meal, meat meal, animal fat, and vitamin-mineral supplement for a complete ration). So why the discrimination against farm feeds?

I propose that concentration of ownership by Big Ag is a significant factor in these feed price increases, and the farm bias.

Has the grain farmers been receiving a larger share of the $/tonne wholesale feed prices since 2007? I don't have the facts, but I doubt it. Likely, Big Ag has kept those windfall prices for themselves.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Please just answer the question .
No need to go off an a rant about Stats Can . Stats can info is not what any one would base their projections on because not many if any farmers put down real truthful numbers when filling out a census because they are not being paid and just go by best guess .

Also now it has gone from Sm to all of Ag . I could yes maybe agree if you were talking prepared bought in feeds only like is used for chicken feed but now you are heading off on different trail .

In response to "Farm Feed" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14396#comment-14396

You say you distrust the StatsCan data. Based on what I've seen, the StatsCan data seems to be supported and consistent with similar data by USDA, George Morris Centre of Univ. of Guelph, FAO, World Bank, and commercially collected market research data that is used by CFC, CFO, and others (Index Mundi and others).

StatsCan has told me in writing that they regularly inspect and test the data for errors and other anomalies, investigate where there is doubt, and correct where necessary. For these reasons, I generally believe StatsCan data within its known limits of accuracy based on the survey size and statistical techniques used.

For those who are playing fast and loose with their submissions of survey data to StatsCan, it is illegal to falsify the data submitted. The government uses that data, as do many others, to make business decisions, and to determine the success or need for government programs.

If you falsify the data, don't be surprised when the government or a private business acts against your best interest, wishes, and needs based on the bad data that you (and others like you) submitted.

If, in spite of all the above points, you are still not satisfied with the objective evidence I have collected and presented to support my opinions and points, then I am unable to help you further.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I was told a several years ago that the involuntary collection of stats Can data was to assist government in better program development. Now for those naïve enough to believe that line, fast forward. Since that time programs has steadily gotten worse. Even worse, its like another line the government often uses. "We are the Government and WE are here to help YOU!"

The official price of chicken feed is higher of course the actual price might differ

You yourself make mention of the minimum wage. Legislated minimum wages are a barrier to businesses. You support the biggest barrier to trade with wage protect but focus on a single miniscule product.

In response to "Wage" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14394#comment-14394

You complain about my alleged support of minimum wage.

I don't necessarily agree with minimum wage. The government has established it for more than 85 years in Ontario. They have done as they see fit, whatever their reasons. I recognize it as a contentious issue, with great polarization, and many assumptions.

I use it here as a benchmark. The affordability of food, especially chicken which is my primary focus, has dropped over the reign of Supply Management. That is nothing for CFO to be proud about.

Unfortunately, CFO feels that is totally irrelevant, they could care less. CFO's mandate is to squeeze every last bit of profit out of the SM system in favor of their quota-bearing members, irregardless of the consequences for the Ontario public or Canada overall. CFO doesn't even respect the 2001 Federal-Provincial Agreement for Chicken that they signed where Section 1.01(d) says they must "work in the balanced interest of producers, industry stakeholders and consumers.". The only limits on SM's rampage is what they can legally get away with under the SM Acts and regulations, and the complaints or appeals of downstream processors who want their cut of the action.

The public is asleep, trusting in the holier than thou, salt of the earth, we're special, highly trustworthy image of farmers, as modeled in the nursery school song "Old McDonald Had A Farm".

The day will soon be here when the public wakes up and suddenly realizes things have gone off a cliff, or we made a wrong turn 50 years ago, and have been slowly sinking into a swamp ever since. The trust the public has blindly given to SM farmers will be terribly strained. Unfortunately all farmers will suffer the consequences for what SM farmers have sown and reaped.

At that judgement day, who will be the most guilty? Will the greatest guilt be at the feet of SM farmers who abused the public's trust? Will the greatest guilt be set upon the naive shoulders of the public for having been so foolish for having trusted SM farmers and given them virtually unlimited powers that tempted the farmers and led them to corrupt and/or dysfunctional practices?

Either way, there is more than enough guilt to go around. Either way, the longer this unfortunate circumstance is allowed to continue, the greater the damage and the greater the rip in the fabric of our society. Generations to the future will continue to pay the consequences for allowing this tragedy to continue another day.

The time to call a halt to this insanity is now. We all need to work together to minimize the damage and to heal the system.

People are literally dying every day due to the SM fallout.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

If I may ask , what is the cause of death ?

While Mr. Black feels strongly (as do I) about the wretched excesses of supply management, and the equally-wretched things it seems to do to the minds of supply management supporters, his comment about death was somewhat overly-dramatic.

While Mr. Black's cause/effect link between supply management and death isn't a cause/effect relationship which is going to be widely accepted, there is a definite relationship between death and supply management in that it's becoming increasingly-obvious that support for supply management in the farm community is dying one funeral at a time.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON

In response to "A not overly-effective dramatic flourish" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14410#comment-14410

The cause-effect data for Canada is not readily available at this time. CFIA has started a Pathogen Reduction Initiative (PRI) for chicken, and is studying the baseline contamination level (see http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/meat-and-poultry-products/program-chang...

This Canadian program started in 2012, and follows the same format as what the USDA completed in 2008 (see http://www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/Baseline_Data_Young_Chicken_2007-200... ). The USDA study showed a major problem for raw chicken, mainly from salmonella and campylobacter. Unfortunately, Canada is 4 yrs behind times.

CDC estimates that 22% of all foodborne illness and 29% of foodborne deaths come from contaminated meats (see http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/attribution-image.html#foodborne-illn... ).

Chicken is chronically contaminated, while pork and beef are usually periodically contaminated.

CDC estimates that poultry caused somewhere between 5% to 20.6% of all foodborne illnesses in the USA between 1998 to 2008 (see Table 3 at http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/3/11-1866-techapp1.pdf ). That analysis is based on 4,589 illnesses during that period.

Poultry is blamed for 9.8% of all foodborne outbreaks and illnesses, 11.5% of all foodborne illnesses that required hospitalizations, and 19.1% of all foodborne diseases that resulted in death.

Until Canada catches up, I suggest that these US percentages are applicable for Canada, until proven otherwise. Do you agree? If not, why not?

Do you still insist that my previous posting was "overly dramatic"?

Is my previous posting so easily dismissed as exaggeration and hyperbole?

If you base your opinion on other data that conflicts with this data, please provide the links and explain further so we can all better understand the source and justification for your jaded doubts.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Now hold on there Glenn . You are trying to bait and switch . Your comment was that SM was responsible . So which is it . You first made it sound like it was the farmer and now have switched to the processor , next it will be the retailer . For some one to make a statement like that you better be ready for a law suit . I am sure there are lawyers who will be more than willing to give you a prostate exam like you have never had before .

In response to "Attribution of Death" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14436#comment-14436

You question whether its the farmers, processors, or retailers who I suggest are responsible for the risks imposed on the consumer.

I believe, backed by the available evidence that the farmers raise chickens with modified microbiomes and metabolisms that adulterates the meat and its nutritional aspects, making it less healthy. By the improper use of antibiotics and other chemicals, the pathogens in the gut and on the exterior of the bird are made more dangerous. All of the above puts everybody who is downstream, including the end consumer, at greater risk. By regulation and trickery, the farmers obtain a higher than reasonable profit, and run inefficient operations as compared to what others have achieved under non-SM systems; all of which inflates the retail prices of chicken, reducing its affordability.

The processor of the chickens use methods that are highly profitable, but known to significantly increase the type, magnitude, and frequency of contamination by deadly pathogens on and in the chicken meat. The processors are also taking huge markups, inflating the price of chicken downstream. They play games with their inventory levels, meat cuts, and other tricks to manipulate the market, causing CFO and CFC to react so that the processors profits are further enhanced; all of which is forced onto the pocketbooks of the consumer, making chicken less affordable and deadly.

Both the grower, the processor, and others are under the control and direction of the Supply Management System, run by the local board. In Ontario, that local board is Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO"). CFO could pass Bylaws, make orders, issue regulations, do inspections, and enforcement actions that control, limit, or prohibit all of these risks.

All of these risks have been known for at least a decade or more. What has CFO done to document, quantify, build awareness, mitigate, or prevent these risks?

Little to nothing!

Lately, Chicken Farmers of Canada ("CFC") has become concerned about all the negativity coming their way, on these issues and others. In CFC's 2013 annual report, CFC said:

"Since 2011, there has been an increasing amount of sustained and largely negative attention to Canada's Supply Management System on a scale to which we are unaccustomed."

So what did CFC decide to do? Did CFC decide to admit the problems and immediately start fixing them?

No!

CFC decided to:

* Hire a media consultant;

* Get busy on the social media portals of Facebook, Twitter, Pinterist, holding Twitter parties, giving away prizes, developing recipes, and other distractions; and

* Install a full-time person as Public Relations Officer.

CFC got all the provincial boards to join CFC on this response, and help fund this public relations propaganda move.

I can only assume that CFO, CFC, and all the rest of the SM system just don't get it. They likely never will, as their pay cheque depends on them continuing to distract and ignore.

The consumer is forced to face the chronic risks and consequences with no solution in sight.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

So, have you got all 98 pages of your appeal on here yet or is there more to come ?

I can see why the tribunal only needed 3 words,trivial,frivolous and vexatious.
Short but to the point.

Mr. Black's concerns are, in a broad public policy context, anything but trivial - his concerns that:
(1) consumers are being hosed by supply management is entirely valid
(2) the "chicken police" are stifling innovation is also entirely valid
(3) the powers-that-be who determine cost of production are artificially overstating the fixed costs attributable to each unit or production is, by the first principles of economics, also entirely correct

However, the enabling legislation narrowly, quite-conveniently for supply management, and quite-deliberately defines what tribunals what are allowed to do, and more-importantly, narrowly defines what they cannot do. Therefore, the range of issues the tribunal to which Mr. Black appealed is allowed to hear, is extremely-narrowly defined to prevent appeals just like Mr. Black's from ever being heard.

A good analogy to explain the difficulty experienced by Mr. Black is that the appeal tribunal to which Mr. Black appealed is allowed to consider what type of upholstery to use on the deck chairs of the Titanic, but is not allowed to talk about icebergs - therefore, any discussion about icebergs, while definitely NOT trivial, must be considered by the tribunal, because of the extreme-narrowness of its mandate, to be frivolous and vexatious.

Therefore, while the members of the anonymous rabble on this site seem overly-eager to "shoot-the-messenger" as well as "throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater" by claiming Mr. Black's concerns were frivolous and vexatious, the rabble doesn't grasp the point that any concern not within the jurisdiction of a tribunal, is frivolous and vexatious by definition, regardless of how valid and important his concerns are in the broader context of responsible public policy.

Therefore, Mr. Black's concerns were judged, within the narrow confines of what this appeals tribunal is allowed to do, to be frivolous and vexatious, but only in that circumstance alone - to claim that, in the broadest sense, Mr. Black's concerns are frivolous and vexatious in any way, shape or form, is nonsense and masks the obvious fact that this "victory" for supply management, in addition to being illusory in the long run, was won because the tribunal was able to hide behind conveniently-structured legalese.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

In response to SM Fallout http://betterfarming.com/comment/14406#comment-14406

You appear to be asking for the specifics on how SM is causing disease and death to Canadians.

Here are a few sad statistics:

Health Canada reports that there are 4 million cases of foodborne illness in Canada every year, some of which come from contaminated SM chicken.

30% to 80% of retail SM chicken are contaminated with deadly bacteria and other pathogens, such as E.coli, salmonella, Heidelberg, listeria, campylobacter, staph, and others that can kill you or make you very sick. About 50% of those pathogens are antibiotic resistant Superbugs due to improper use of antibiotics at SM hatcheries and grower factory farms.

Fast-growing chickens are hybrid breeds prized by SM because (as their name implies) they grow to slaughter weight very quickly. They’re specifically bred to have an insatiable appetite; they’re basically designed to put on maximum weight in minimum time. This makes them very large and very fatty – up to 50% fattier than free-ranging traditional breeds.

A typical SM chicken processed on a high speed mechanized abattoir slaughter processing line typically has 3,700 CFU (Colony Forming Units) of bacterial contamination. In comparison, a farmer processing one chicken at a time with a sharp knife will produce chicken with around 400 CFU; 9 times less contamination.

SM's high density housing, the rapid growing, the feed additives, and chemicals (including, but not limited to Arsenic, banned antibiotics, antihistamines, Prozac anti-depressants, caffeine, and Tylenol) are used on some or most mega chicken factory farms to dramatically shift the bird's metabolism so the farmer can make more profit.

The standard SM grow system makes the bird sick and weak without continual medications, antibiotics, drugs and chemical to counteract these shortfalls. Without SM chemical soup continuously fed to the birds, the birds typically suffer 20% mortality from just necrotic enteritis (see CFC's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo9XJe7CME8#t=21 ). Other diseases add to the sick list and the death toll on SM farms.

As SM chicken goes, the birds raised under CFO's approved system in Ontario are about 25% sicker than similar birds raised in BC and Atlantic Canada, as reported by CFIA's abattoir condemnation reports. In comparison, most small flock farmers would have less than 5% death rate without the use of SM's chemical soup in raising the birds.

It was only in Aug. 2012 that the regular feeding of arsenic to meat birds was banned. Before that, the use of arsenic by some or most SM chicken farms was standard practice. Arsenic is a well know known acute poison. When used on a chronic basis, arsenic causes or contributes to the formation of a number of different cancers, heart disease, diabetes and a decline in brain function. Knowingly introducing poisons into the food system so the SM farmer could make an extra 4% profit! Pretty shocking, I say.

All of these chemicals and drugs derange the metabolism of the chickens. Having the birds with lights on for extended hours, creates sleep deprived birds. High ammonia levels in the air, bacteria laden dusts on a continuous basis, biofilm in the water lines and nipples, concentrated feeds that are pushed onto the birds so they are inclined to overeat; all of these take their toll. Most SM chickens never see the sun, never feel grass under their feed, nor the breeze to ruffle their feathers. All of these and more cause or contribute to the unhealthy shift in the quality of the meat produced. SM factory chicken tends to have Omega-6:Omega-3 fatty acid ratios double to triple the ratios achieved by slow grow, pastured poultry methods that are often used by Small Flockers.

Omega-6:Omega-3 ratios below 4 are generally considered ideal; the lower the better. Omega-6 causes or contributes to inflammation, cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, atherosclerosis, asthma, arthritis, vascular disease, thrombosis, immune-inflammatory processes, and tumor proliferation; most of which kill a number of Canadians. SM methods produce chickens that are usually significantly higher in Omega-6 and lower in Omega-3; causing non-ideal and less healthy food.

SM factory barns produce significant air pollution (drugs, organic dusts, etc.) that destroy the health of neighbours downwind of the SM factory farms.

In Canada, we have multiple simultaneous epidemics that are killing thousands of people each year. SM chicken growing methods cause the risk to Canadians' health to increase. Small Flock methods generally have significantly lower risk profiles.

Health Canada reports that 7.6% of Canadians can't afford the food they need to feed themselves. Ontario, a "Have Not Province", is 11% worse than this Canadian average. On First Nation Reserves, from 33% to 61% of families have food insecurity. That causes or contributes to malnutrition, or "dumping down" the food purchases to less nutritious foods. SM chicken is from 50% to 300% more expensive than the similar chicken in the rest of the world; all so as to help SM chicken farmers move from millionaires to billionaires. They are already the highest paid farmers in Canada according to Statistics Canada, but they want more and more.

Because chickens have the best FCR of all farm animals, they should produce the cheapest meat. SM pushes the prices way up, forcing people to become vegetarians more and more because they can't afford SM meat. On the few occassions that Canadians can afford it, SM rules ensure the public can only choose low quality SM chicken; no other choice is allowed.

All of the above and more are well documented by objective scientific references and sources on SFPFC's Blog at http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/econ155b-eng.htm

l certainly agree with you when it comes to more people becoming vegetarians,how in the world can any BBQ-loving consumer survive with red meat prices being at the highs they have been this year,if it wasen't for chicken prices being resonable we would have no relief at all.Seriously,stewing beef 26% higher than a year ago!!

The way things are going we don't have to worry about the Animal Rights groups turning consumers into vegetarians..the Pork and Beef Industries are doing the job for them!

Two quick observations, first there are more than 15,000 small flock producers and this guy only has 34 members (may have flocks or not) then, second, he writes ridiculous posts like this one and many others. Zero credibility. Zero surprise.

Mr. Black is entirely correct when it comes to his conclusions regarding chicken feed prices.

I mean come on, even a complete dummy would know(or not) that you wouldn't care one iota what the price of feed is if you are guaranteed the same profit margins regardless.
And as far as statscan goes, if someone can name an organization in Canada that gathers stats better than they do, I'd like to hear it.

It appears to me, after reading some anonymous comments, that some posters may not be reporting accurately to statscan, or taking them seriously.

I think its time to put a name on those posts and report them to statscan. lol

Raube Beuerman

I think there might be a whole bunch next time signed Raube Beuerman !

Yep, even a complete dummy should know that COP pricing does not get administered at the individual farm level and guarantee the same profit margins regardless. Even under SM, the lower your farm's cost, of course, the higher your profit. Actually, Black and Rube don't seem to know. Zero credibility. Zero surprise.

I am only refering to feed costs.
Of course, when a supply managed supporter is proven wrong(aren't they always), they resort to skirting the issue.

Raube Beuerman

In response to "A Dummies Guide to COP" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14422#comment-14422

I don't know much about COP as practiced by CFO because it's kept secret.

Why it must be secret is also a secret.

What we do know is that they take the feed price of 4 independent feed mills, then use that data by some magical process to get CFO's chicken feed cost for all Ontario.

CFO's definition of "independent" is unknown. I'd guess that it is defined in some way so that it's a significant advantage for CFO's members, and against the best interests of consumers.

Pullet growers were required to expose the COP for their members when they applied to become part of SM. Perhaps that can give us a window on the COP for CFO's quota-based growers. The histogram of pullet grower COP can be seen here http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2013/05/pullet-parasite-11-mill... (click on the graph for a bigger version).

For pullet growers, their COP ranged from $1.25 to $3.75 which is a 300% range. The average COP was $2.10

For the most efficient pullet grower, being paid at the average COP gives them a 68% price advantage. For the least efficient pullet grower, being paid at the average COP gives them a 78.6% disadvantage.

Does CFO's COP data have similar variability?

Does CFO choose the maximum COP as their benchmark? We don't know, it's a secret process. If CFO uses the maximum COP rather than the average COP, CFO would guarantee that 100% of all quota-based chicken growers make a "reasonable profit", while most of the chicken farmers would make gouging, unfair, and excessive profits because they are far better than the worst farmer.

The new process under development by CFO is also secret.

Should this secrecy be allowed? Both Ontario and Canada have a government policy of open, transparent, and accountable government. Too bad that doesn't include the fiefdom of CFO.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Hi Glenn

The RMP COP or target prices for Pork and Beef can also be added to your list of secret numbers. Want proof? There have been numerous RMP cheques going out to livestock producers for a few years now. However, unlike other export commodities, such as grains for example, nowhere on The Agricorp website can you find out the COP or target price numbers on which the cheques were based on. So much for the much advertised RMP transparency eh! Trying to fly under the radar of U.S. countervail would be a likely reason for the secret. Unfortunately, as the good book says the truth will find you out eventually.

Only a sm producer would think that

Its the government who doesn't want the truth to come out not the producers

In response to "No wonder you are seen as a joke" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14413#comment-14413

I attended PFO's seminar with Joel Salatin last Saturday and collected another 35 members to SFPFC, so our membership now stands at 72.

You say my previous post (I assume you refer to http://betterfarming.com/comment/14404#comment-14404 ) is ridiculous.

I use the dictionary definition of ridiculous as "Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd, preposterous, or silly. Laughable"

Is that what you meant to say?

Exactly what do you find to be ridiculous?

I have re-read what I wrote in the posting you attack, but I do not find anything ridiculous therein. I find it to be a very serious and sobering problem.

If you have different ideas or other objective evidence that refutes what I have said, please post the details here.

If you are unwilling or unable to provide objective facts to support your opinion that my posting is ridiculous, then you may wish to reconsider your statement as an outburst unsupported by any facts.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Most of all the assertion "People are literally dying every day due to the SM fallout."

In response to "Most of it is ridiculous" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14461#comment-14461

Read the following: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874360/

Public Health Canada reports how mis-use of ceftiofur antibiotics to inject broiler chicken eggs to maximize SM profits and reduce their risks at the expense of the public of illness up to & including death.

If this objective evidence is not yet sufficient to support my statement to which you object, see SFPFC's Blog for many more examples.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Mr. Black could, in his defense, point out that supply management very-much stifles the innovative ability of the chicken industry to offer a type of "up-market" chicken which would not be fed these rather-objectionable things.

After all, if the US milk industry can generate premiums for BST-free milk throughout the entire marketing channel, how hard would it be to do the same thing for chicken in Canada if we didn't have the Kremlin style, forced-mediocrity of supply management standing in the way?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

There actually is an Up-Market for chicken . It is in the form of raising 300 birds currently . You morons who are so stuck on your anti SM brigad just don't get it yet . Yes Sm needs a serious overhaul but the way you anti crusaders are going about it is not getting the job done . You are stuck in time like many old farm organizations .

The up market is already here.
But even with 5,000 birds, can Black produce profitably so far from the market?
He said he could. Let's hope he tries.
Check out the Specialty Breeds Chicken Program.

That is why 2000 bird flocks need to be allowed the current chicken board does not look after these small markets.

All new production should limited to small producers of 2000 or less birds per prodution cycle .

In response to "Most of it is Ridiculous" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14461#comment-14461

To save the effort by all, I did the calculations for everybody. Based on the latest CDC data for USA (Canadian data isn't available but likely similar to US), I calculate that 2.7 Canadians die each year from salmonellosis induced by contaminated poultry.

This calc. is based on 35.16 million Canadians, and 0.9 cases per year of salmonella per 100,000 population, of which 71% are hospitalized and 5% died, and 10.1% to 29.2% of these cases caused by contaminated poultry.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

If your math is correct, your logic certainly is not. The headline should read - Cross-contamination and improper cooking causes 2.7 Canadian salmonella deaths annually. 

Try, try and think about chicken production, slaughter, processing, wholesaling, food preparation and proper cooking. 

Then, get up to date on hatchery practices and you will really feel dumb.

Comment modified by editor

In response to "Your logic kills" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14482#comment-14482

The details on my math is presented here: http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.com/2014/10/27-canadians-die-each-... You can check my math for yourself. Unlike CFO and the other SM boys, everything is open, transparent, and accountable for Small Flockers.

I know that CFC banned the injection of hatching eggs with the Class I antibiotic ceftiofur in May 2014 so as to minimize the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria (see http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2014/04/finally-cfc-bans-ceftio... ). While ceftiofur has been banned, there are other drugs and chemicals that could be used (or are used) instead of ceftiofur. Is it this to which you refer at the broiler hatcheries, or something else? Please explain fully.

Canada's Food and Drugs Act, Article 4 states:

4. No person shall sell an article of food that:
(a) has in or on it any poisonous or harmful substance;
(b) is unfit for human consumption;
(c) consists in whole or in part any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance;
(d) is adulterated; or
(e) was manufactured, prepared, preserved, packaged or stored under unsanitary conditions.

Article 4 seems pretty clear to me.

Depending on the definition you take, salmonella laced raw chicken could fail on all 5 of these sub-sections of the Food & Drug Act.

Perhaps you feel "raw chicken" isn't food, and only becomes "food" once it has been properly cooked, at which time the pathogens have all been killed, so the chicken is then acceptable. Is that your rationalization and convoluted logic? If so, if "raw chicken" isn't "food", then what is it?

How is it that contaminated chicken gets passed off as OK food?

Why does SM deliver a ticking pathological chicken bomb to consumers, and consumers are expected to defuse and deactivate that pathogenic chicken bomb before it goes off?

If the consumer is unsuccessful at dis-arming the pathogenic chicken bomb, it's the consumer's fault says SM, as they weren't careful enough.

Does SM wash their hands of any responsibility for killing consumers with pathogenic chicken, just like Pontius Pilot washed his hands 2,000 years ago?

Fifty years ago, SM received their monopoly, power, and right to "reasonable profits" courtesy of the public, so that SM could properly serve the public as stewards of their self-regulating profession.

Unfortunately, SM has evolved into a self-serving monopoly that misuses their powers to profit themselves, irregardless of the risks to which they subject consumers.

Please explain how SM's chronically inappropriate conduct is just, fair, or reasonable.

If SM no longer treats the public in a just, fair, and reasonable manner, please explain why SM should expect to retain and enjoy their monopoly at the public's risk and expense.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

If SM truly no longer treats the public in a just, fair, and reasonable manner then you can go to the Tribunal and it will be changed.

They will entertain even the slightest and slimmest of arguments. Only in the rarest of circumstances would they rule that an appeal request was trivial, frivolous and vexatious along with being made in bad faith.

Oh wait........they already did.

In response to "Continuing Inneuendo Because You Lost?" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14489#comment-14489

A year ago, I felt exactly the same as what you stated above, that the Tribunal was there to ensure that SM treated everybody in a just, fair, and reasonable manner. That is why I launched the appeal in the first place.

I went to the Tribunal with all of the unjust, unfair, and unreasonable issues about Supply Management in Version #1 of my appeal. The Tribunal refused to hear about unjust, unfair, and unreasonable behaviours of SM practitioners, nor the public's expectations.

The Tribunal said I was restricted to just the Small Flock regulation and the 300 vs. 2,000 birds issue.

When I filed Version #2 which restricted the appeal to these 2 issues, Version #2 was rejected by the Tribunal as frivolous, vexatious, and bad faith.

Therefore, the evidence clearly disagrees with our shared initial assumption as to the purpose and powers of the Tribunal.

Both of us need to face the unveiled reality about the Tribunal and its purpose.

I have accepted the reality about the Tribunal. Is everybody else, including you, prepared to do likewise?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

In response to "You have concocted your own strange version of 'Reality' " and many others http://betterfarming.com/comment/14511#comment-14511

I have presented evidence suggesting there are 2.7 deaths per year of Canadians that are caused by SM chicken contaminated by salmonella that is regularly sold at retail stores in Canada (see http://betterfarming.com/comment/14478#comment-14478 ).

That estimate was based upon both US and Canadian data. I have openly declared from the very beginning my use of US data due to the lack of Canadian data.

You and others totally reject all evidence against SM's questionable methods as useless. It appears that you feel SM Canadian chicken is perfect, the best in the world, and are unwilling to consider any suggestion to the contrary.

I agree that there is some room for doubt; there always will be. However, there is a concept called "Precautionary Principle" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle ), first developed in Germany in the 1980's.

Health Canada says "The Health Canada Decision Making Framework treats the concept of precaution as pervasive. As such it does not require extremes in the actions taken. Instead, risk management strategies reflect the context and nature of the issue, including the urgency, scope and level of action required." (see http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/hpfb-dgpsa/risk-risques_tc-tm-eng.php ).

There is also the principle of Occam's Razor, which says the best answer is usually the simplest answer with the fewest assumptions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor ).

In spite of these two principles, there are those who still assume the the Earth is at the centre of our solar system (not the Sun). This argument started around 2,000 BC and continues to today, over 4,000 years and counting. Somehow, I don't think the SM debate will end any time soon.

There are also those who believe the Earth is flat (not a globe), cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung cancer nor addiction ( ongoing discussions since Doll & Hill's study in 1956), and many more.

That is your choice, to believe as you will. Soon, SM Believers may be added to the deniers of scientific evidence listed above. We'll have to wait to see for sure.

Do you believe it is OK for the masses being doomed to suffer as long as there is at least one person left who chooses to deny the overwhelming body of evidence against SM?

I believe there is now sufficient scientific evidence to take action to improve SM chicken so as to reduce the risk and cost of this terrible system. Denial of the available evidence delays the solution, and increases the risk and suffering for all.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

We are to assume you haven't quite got all 98 pages on here yet.

Keep going, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

There are those who believe the Earth is flat (not a globe), cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung cancer and some that claim SM of chicken causes 2.7 deaths annually.

The ultimate in belief over reason continues to be on the part of supply management supporters who continually deny that:

(1) supply management hoses consumers
(2) supply management stifles innovation
(3) supply management bullies other farmers
(4) supply management restricts our ability to negotiate trade deals

Therefore, when it comes to denying the obvious, nobody beats supply management except possibly anonymous posters who don't seem to get the obvious point that they, by being anonymous, are little more than bullies themselves.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Actually I enjoy many of the anonymous posts which are well thought out and provide lots to think about. True some are negative and just an outlet for people to vent or attack others,but the same could be said for some signed posts. Maybe the moderators are screening the worst comments but as far as tone and respect goes I would say anonymous are far more pleasant and respectful than signed ones and I think they are quietly winning the great supply management debate by using logic and avoiding the repetition and demonizing we commonly see with many of the signed posts.

The supply management debate is already long-since over because younger farmers who weren't born with quota under their pillow hate it with a passion, and who could blame them for not wanting to spend their entire lives as second-class citizens, and second-class farmers in their own communities?

Furthermore, the only people who cling to the belief that the debate about supply managment isn't long-since over, are farmers with quota and who are grasping at any available straw in an increasingly-desperate attempts to keep their unearned entitlements, and farmers well-over the age when anything they say is given any respect by anyone.

It's too bad that, in your mind, pleasant and respectful count for more than the credibility automatically accorded to somebody who actually signs something, and who is, therefore, prepared to stand behind his/her beliefs.

It's also too bad that, for some unfathomable reason understood by nobody with even the most-basic understanding of economics and/or certainly by no younger farmer, you can find "logic" in the postings by anonymous supply management supporters when, by definition, no logic can be found to support their greed and sense of entitlement at the expense of everyone in their way.

Let's put it this way, anyone who can find "logic" in any posting by supply management supporters, would have no trouble also finding "logic" in arguments supporting slavery.

I'm not at all sorry that my comments may not be seen to be either pleasant or respectful, but then anonymous comments never deserve either, and besides, why would anyone need to be, or even want to be, respectful or nice to anonymous people, especialy those who continually deny the truth?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

You seem to be saying that no matter how great an idea is if it gets posted here anonymously both the idea and its author deserve no respect. This sites owners seem to disagree with that or they would delete all anonymous posts. Following the same logic those people who do provide their names seem to feel comfortable here or they would go elsewhere. One thing I know for sure is that when I see name calling in a post whether or not its signed I don't give it much importance because it comes across as bullying instead of a debate or exchange of ideas.

It is sort of like and going to the zoo and teasing the monkeys . They have names too .

I know of lots of people going cross border to get there chickens and milk ;cheese so that tell us hmmmmm what its to expensive in Canada r we getting gouged like the gas hmmmmmm

I am surprised that no one posted that they went across the border for a cheap turkey for Thanks Giving .

I would agree that for the most part unsigned posts are more respectful than some of the primary bullies on this site.

When is the anonymous rabble on this site going to realize that being anonymous is the ultimate form of bullying?

Simply stated, if somebody's going to be a bully, a jerk, and a fool by being anonymous, they deserve to be, and will be, treated accordingly.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

It will be judged for merit along side all of the other half truth and cherry picked comments on this blog regardless if they were signed or not.

Simply stated, if somebody's going to be a bully, a jerk, and a fool by being anonymous, they deserve to be, and will be, treated accordingly. So it would seem that the above statement is not fact since it is likely an opinion and the meaning of the anonymous in the dictionary does not state the same . So maybe the site admin needs to proof things as to what is fact , fiction or self made spewed rabble factionoiddinal mis-leading dribble .

Simply stated, if somebody's going sign their name and be a bully, a jerk, and a fool, they deserve to be, and will be, treated accordingly.

An opinion is what you reach when you stop thinking.

I enjoy many of the thoughtful anonymous comments but I always wonder why some people in both categories have such strong opinions. Haven't we seen enough trouble caused by extremists whether they are religious or political?

In reply to "There are Always Believers" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14525#comment-14525

You place me into the same category as the Flat Earth Society, and deniers of cigarettes causing cancer.

I have tried to clearly state by belief about the risks that Canadians are exposed to by SM chicken, and the objective evidence that supports my belief.

You have made sarcastic remarks about my beliefs, and attempted to ridicule me.

However, you have not yet said what you believe.

Do you believe that 1 or more chickens sold at retail meat counter in Canada are contaminated with live E.coli, campylobacter, salmonella, staph, etc?

Do you believe Canadians are at risk from foodborne pathogens on retail raw chicken?

Do you believe that SM is responsible for ensuring safe chicken is grown, processed, and delivered to Canadian retail stores?

Do you have any data to estimate the number of Canadians that become sick or die from foodborne illness caused or contributed by raw chicken sold at retail? If yes, will you share that data here and now?

If you have no such data, what are your specific reasons to doubt or dismiss the 2.7 deaths/yr from salmonella poisoning that I have proposed?

I think you will enjoy continuing to snipe at me from your anonymous, hidden position in the bushes.

I also think that you will refuse to answer any of these questions I have posed here.

It is a sad, unfortunate situation.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

You extrapolate US data to discover your CDN figures and than make an assumption that CDN cases of chicken related infections are caused by SM when there is no link for SM causing US infections. give your head a shake!

In reply to "Air Head Logic" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14488#comment-14488

The level of contamination of retail chicken is about the same in US and Canada. The bacteria on chicken are the same species and serotypes in both US and Canada. I assume that the immune systems of Canadian and US citizens are about the same, so an E.coli or Salmonella infection in the US is about the same severity in both US and Canada. The health care provided in hospitals of major cities of the US is about the same as similar hospitals in Canada (eg. death rates, days hospitalized for similar diseases, etc.).

Time and again, chicken sold at Canadian retail stores has been found contaminated with deadly pathogens (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20615345 and see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22221353 as two examples). SM chicken has about 99.96% market share in Canada. When the public health units, Univ. of Guelph, or CFIA collected these chicken samples from retail stores, do you assume that this was non-SM chicken? If it wasn't SM chicken, how do you explain it being sold at retail grocery stores?

SM is solely Canada's curse. However, the chicken factory farming methods used by SM in Canada and the mechanized slaughter plant technologies are similar to chicken factory growers who contract for Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride, etc. in the US, and the abattoirs as well.

If you have objective facts that puts any of the above statements in doubt, share those expert references here and now.

However, if you wish to be a nihilist or Doubting Thomas and deny reality, I will never be able to help or convince you, so we will have to agree to disagree.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Glenn

With all due respect are the numbers the same for the USA and Canada ?
Are the standards and the quality control the same ?
Are the inspectors the same people .
It could well be that the problems start in the processing plant or even is just a bird/chicken thing that rears it's ugly head when things are not done to stringent standards . You can relate deaths to just about any thing you want to if you spin it enough times . Heck even vegetables have killed people and even organic at that .
I am really starting to see the where and why you are getting the negative comments . Sorry guy but to me you are not going about this the right way . That said I am not sure there is a wrong way other than pulling things out of context that may not be the same here .

In response to Numbers http://betterfarming.com/comment/14490#comment-14490

I am forced to use US stats as Canada has just started collecting these same type of stats, and no data from them has been released as of yet.

A small amount of Canadian chicken is exported to the US, and about 25% of chicken sold in Canada is imported (US, Chile, SE Asia, Israel, etc). I understand that the specifications and techniques used on Canadian SM farms and abattoirs are similar to those used in the US. For example, the US allowed unlimited abattoir line speeds a few years ago in their abattoirs. CFIA is just rolling out a similar program here now.

Studies done by ON Public Health Units, or Univ. of Guelph, or CFIA has determined again and again that between 30% to 80% of the retail chicken sold in Ontario is contaminated with 1 or more deadly pathogen (eg. salmonella, campylobacter, E.coli, staph, lysteria, etc.), see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20615345 and see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22221353 as two examples. Of the chickens with pathogens, about 50% of those pathogens are Superbugs (ie. the pathogens are resistant to 1 or more antibiotics, so if you make a mistake and get infected with them, it is difficult to cure your infection).

You can choose to scoff, or shoot the messenger, but the risk is real.

You think my approach is all wrong. What then do you suggest as an alternative? After 3 years of doing the research and asking questions, I have come to the conclusion that SM Chicken producers (and the Federal/Provincial governments that support them) are entrenched, arrogant, and unwilling to consider any evidence or opinions other than their own self-interests.

If you have concerns about my methods, I am interested in learning all your ideas for positive change for the greater good of all. However, allowing the status quo to continue is not an option as far as I am concerned.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

test

In response to "License to Post Flawed Arguments" http://betterfarming.com/comment/13203#comment-13203

CFO's data on Chicken CPI from 1981 to 2002 (see SFPFC's Blog posting Feb, 28, 2013 "Chicken Price Parity: Will it Ever Come?" and CFO's document "Supply Management: A Recipe for Success" https://www.dropbox.com/s/2f0c3qiacrkhllf/CFO-SM-Brochure-03.pdf?dl=0 on pg. 4) showed a huge inflation in retail prices while farm gate prices inflated at a more moderate rate.

Unfortunately everybody downstream of the chicken farm has the privilege (or takes it without asking) to markup everything by percentages, rather than fixed fees for handling & processing (eg. Does it cost more to ship a kg of gold vs. a kg of lead?, these costs should be close to the same, as shipping is charged out at $ per kg-km traveled).

Unfortunately, SM chicken as defined and managed by CFO means that any farm gate inflation gets magnified as it passes through the downstream system on its way to retail meat counters. Add to this questionable markup the additional markup that is taken each step of the way, and we have unaffordable chicken soon enough.

CFO has total control of chicken producing, processing, storage, shipping, pricing, and marketing in Ontario, and power to mandate or prohibit all terms in all contracts for chicken. CFO's powers include everything on chicken farms, until the final customer buys that chicken.

When it comes to chicken in Ontario, only God has more power than CFO.

You know what we say about absolute power, it corrupts humans, sooner or later. CFO is now 50 years past its "Best Before" date.

If the SM Chicken system (or any part of it) is corrupt, dysfunctional, incompetent, negligent, or dangerous, it is CFO who is responsible (or irresponsible), as the case may be. CFO is responsible due to the regulations that they passed (or lack thereof), or their monitoring & enforcement of those regulations.

Perhaps consumers are being price gouged by CFO's friends in AOCP as part of CFO's plan (ie. does CFO turn a blind eye to AOCP's gouging so that AOCP won't complain about gouging by CFO's members?)

Maybe some day, we'll know for sure.

Once the Berlin Wall came down, we soon started to learn about the terrible things the East German Stasi Secret Police had been doing for decades, as compared to the rumors that had circulated forever. Unfortunately, in the Stasi case, reality was far worse than the rumors.

Will there be similar gaps between rumor and reality for CFO? Time will tell all.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

The tribunal would not even hear Black’s appeal because it was trivial, frivolous and vexatious along with being made in bad faith.

Anonymous comment modified by editor in accordance with our guidelines.

Quota period a121 what was the price of corn and soybean

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.