George Morris Centre folds

© AgMedia Inc.

Description (Tag): 

Comments

The George Morris Centre, quite appropriately, pointed out that as long as ethanol was mandated and/or subsidized, it would be net-negative for jobs and economic activity - a basic economic truth welcomed by hog and livestock producers, but detested by the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO)who, in turn, produced wretchedly one-sided studies by the boat-load in increasingly futile attempts to defend ethanol.

Therefore, for Barry Senft of the GFO to claim the George Morris Centre was one-sided about ethanol, is one of the most-blatant examples of "the pot calling the kettle black" agriculture has ever seen, and demonstrates the tremendous benefit the George Morris Centre provided by pointing out the "false half of half truths" proffered by organizations like the GFO.

I'm told that of the most-prized possessions of the George Morris Centre is a framed full page ad the GFO took out in a major daily newspaper denouncing the George Morris Centre for its position on ethanol - I'm also advised that an Ottawa-based think tank noted, at the time, that anytime an organization like the GFO takes out a full-page ad to claim its innocence, "it's guilty as Hell" and congratulated the George Morris Centre for its work.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Apparently being a truly unbiased economic think tank does not pay the bills.

Looks like the GFO will have the last laugh on this one.

At the end of the day, the George Morris Centre (GMC) set an example for those of us who detest half-truths coming from vested interests.

With the exception of suppply management, no farm organization goes to greater lengths than GFO to promulgate half-truths - and the GMC skewered them all.

However, in one instance I beat the GMC to the punch - several years ago, GFO paid a consultant to produce a report claiming that since ethanol hadn't increased the adjusted basis for corn, then ethanol hadn't harmed livestock producers. I pointed out to GFO that if ethanol hadn't altered the adjusted basis for corn, then ethanol had been of no benefit to corn producers, meaning that corn producers had no reason to defend ethanol - this report promptly disappeared from sight, and GFO has never cited it again.

It is exactly this wasting of producer money on baised studies which offends me and the GMC. The GMC will be missed because organizations like GFO will now be able to produce even greater numbers of biased pro-ethanol "reports" with only people like me to point out the logic and methodology flaws.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The truth be told that GMC got in trouble when every report they did for a group was in favor of the group even when deemed wrong or with miss information . To many times they were not showing both sides of the issues and it got to the point where their groups who were paying the money for them to survive dried up . There should be a good lesson in this with other farm rep groups who also have never done the studies and ooked at both sides of an issue . They too will be short lived organizations once their gov legislated funding runs out .

GMC also looked to have a very select group of high priced members . This too is a real one sided way to have things squewed in favor of some . The high cost of some help any more comes to make things unaffordable .

Controversy is one thing , not looking at both sides of a sitation or policy and taking the route of fence sitting is even worse . It means you just pee'd in your own boot while some one was watching but will argue that you didn't .

Stephen, I couldn't agree more with you, well said....

Sean McGivern

Yep, Sky high prices for Beef and Pork and corn at half the price it was a few years back really makes it tough eh? In fact one pork producer told me corn is so low priced that he can't afford to grow it if it weren't that he had to grow it in order to comply with his nutrient management plan. Besides he had so much free N in his pits his only choice was to grow more corn to feed more hogs to make more money to buy more land to grow more corn to feed...well you get the picture. Then there is another pork/beef producer who purchase two new livestock farms to grow more corn for the newly acquired livestock in the barns. Lots of shiny new equipment too. Yep times are tough.

A corn farmer with a ethanol mandate working a few weeks a year complains about livestock guys that struggle hard for every dollar they get.If Beef and Pork is so great then you should be buying-building barns as beef and pork has no quota,open markets and all you need is some ambition to make the BIG BUCKS

Corn has no quota either, open markets also, except competing against "corn dumping subsidies" from USA. Meanwhile, Ontario Pork and Beef get tons of camouflaged non transparent subsidies that U.S. livestock don't get.

Livestock fought the corn countervail now they don't want anything else that might increase their feed cost even a few pennies with ddgs as a side benefit.

Remember 2006 when corn farmers asked for a $125 an acre "emergency payment" and received gov't monies and I was at a meeting were corn reps said "After we get our money if there is anything left over then the livestock guys can have some" . All livestock guys growing corn got O on grains fed and had soy meal-prepared feed purchased deducted from any grain sales payment subsidies . Why would corn growers want to slap there best customer in the face? You do realize ethanol is just a temporary fuel and is not going to be used long term as an energy source

If I recall back in 06 most livestock organizations were still extremely paranoid and right so about countervail and dumping charges against Ontario livestock exports because of subsidies . Seems they have an extremely short memory as verified but Ritz who claims RMP payments (to exported livestock) are deemed to be most likely countervailable (even though those subsidies and others are currently well camouflaged). Why countervailable? because they tend to increase export market share against unsubsidized U.S. livestock. Furthermore, some GMC people were never shy about suggesting Ontario corn growers should sell Ontario corn at an adjusted price below the Michigan price to facilitate livestock exports. In short, they wanted Ontario corn growers to subsidized the livestock export freight to the U.S. at Ontario corn growers expense. In the same breath, they admitted (rather reluctantly and quietly if pushed) that Ontario corn growers should have pursued countervail and or that a MRI like program should be restarted. As for ethanol possibly being temporary, time will tell with these gas prices.

E85 engines would help counter the ever increasing mid east gas prices by allowing an individual to effectively take control of the mid east price gougers. Switching to E85 when gasoline gets to be "stupid prices" and back to E10 when gas gets priced reasonable would make common sense.

I just bought a new gas-powered water pump to fill my sprayer - clearly marked on the engine was a sign warning against using this so-called E85 fuel.

I suggest it makes no sense whatsoever, at any price of gasoline, to ignore labels warning against the use of E85, even on brand-new engines.

And when it comes to "price gougers" I see absolutely no difference between the Arab oil-sheiks who control OPEC, and blue-eyed corn farmers who hide behind ethanol mandates in order to gouge their traditional customers.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

E85 can only be used in E85 or flex fuel engines. Furthermore, most new small engines such as Kawasaki say that "oxygenated" fuel such as 10% ethanol is fine to use. On the other hand, most small engines such as Kawasaki don't recommend methanol at more than 5%. As far as price gougers goes, when the GMC suggests corn growers should take a price less than Michigan farmers receive to facilitate (subsidize Ontario livestock) I would call that a form of gouging. Furthermore, for livestock groups to oppose the corn dumping countervail action is price gouging.

It's not gouging if Ontario corn farmers take a price less than Michigan farmers in order to facilitate Ontario livestock, it's simply good business and the GMC's suggestion is, therefore, entirely appropriate.

Ontario corn farmers don't seem to ever understand, or even want to understand, that giving a price break to livestock farmers increases sales and thereby prevents the Ontario/Michigan price spread from widening even further. And, after all, livestock feeding gravitates to those areas with the lowest corn prices - thereby generating more demand, and higher prices.

In addition, it is definitely not gouging when livestock producers oppose corn dumping countervail action - they are simply responding to price gouging by corn farmers who are hiding behind the countervail.

The fact of the matter is that subsidies and mandates for ethanol give corn farmers the ability to gouge their traditional customers - and that's the point the GMC has always tried to make, much to the disgust of corn farmers who simply can't handle the truth which is that they are the guilty parties in the ethanol farce/fiasco.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The simple fact remains. In an integrated export market, how does Ontario compete against USA Farm Bill Subsidy Policy dumping?

In order to have a chance of ever being competitive in any ballgame you have to have the same tools as your competitors. For the GMC to suggest that Ontario corn growers sell at a loss without the subsidy tools to do so is simply bogus policy, bad economics and receives a fail as a balanced position.

You're missing the point - any business person, except of course, Canadian corn, dairy, and poultry farmers, looks at the market and ask themselves - "Am I willing to produce for what the market is prepared to pay?"

The market simply doesn't care if anyone is selling at a loss - that's the producer's problem for having costs that are too high. In addition, subsidies simply increase, rather than mitigate, the so-called selling at a loss problem. And, as well, the easiest way to lower our costs of growing corn would be to get rid of supply management and their proclivity to drive land prices into the stratosphere.

Furthermore, you're missing the point that the George Morris Centre is simply following good economic policy, and good business policy, which is that if you find yourself in a position where you may not be covering your fixed costs, you sell at as slight a loss as you can, in order to avoid losing even more by losing your customers completely.

Therefore, it is Canadian corn farmers, who, by adhering to a "screw everybody" policy created by ethanol mandates and subsidies, and not the economists at the George Morris Centre, who are advocating bogus policy, bad economics, and un-balanced positions.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

"good business policy, which is that if you find yourself in a position where you may not be covering your fixed costs, you sell at as slight a loss as you can, in order to avoid losing even more by losing your customers completely." WOW now that is original eh, even if it isn't sustainable think-tank policy.

Get a grip Stephane, we as livestock farmers are doing just fine and dandy in expansionary mode bidding up farm prices to grow more corn to feed more livestock ....to make more $$$$ to buy more farms etc. etc. Last I checked our livestock prices were sky high and livestock subsidies were still rolling in.

As for the corn dumping and countervail, several livestock producers supported the countervail action and one well respected hog farmer in a farm leadership position admitted corn farmers should have won the corn countervail except that U.S. /Canada ag politics got in the way.

As well, he would definitely agree with you that current livestock subsidies may simply cause livestock prices to tank in the next few years getting us back into the livestock buyout programs once again. Unfortunately, his biggest fear before that happened was a livestock countervail action coming from the U.S.A.

That is bs no livestock producer is worried about countervail the only countervailable Canadian product in the agri business is sm product

Ask Ritz about good chance of livestock countervail because of livestock subsidies on exported livestock that aren't subsidized in the U.S.

In some areas livestock farmers (Pork and Beef mostly) are indeed bidding up land! Must be using all the old NISA plus Agri Invest plus Livestock RMP, plus Agristability plus high livestock prices to bid up the price of land.

The way it is and not twisted logic is that the GMC is no more . And that they did to themselves .

As people continue to eat less meat ( pork & beef ) we need to find other uses for corn . Guess we should be glad that chicken consumption is on the rise and the Small Flockers are trying to increase corn consumprion but chickens don't eat a whole lot before they are butcher size . So we should be glad for the SM meat chicken and egg market as it grows to be a larger part of the corn user along with higher gas prices and the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel .

We should not be glad for SM meat chicken production as a means of increasing corn usage, because supply management, by definition, restricts the amount of corn which would otherwise be sold - sorry, my anonymous friend, but your economics are entirely backwards.

In addition, as long as ethanol is subsidized and/or mandated, we should not be promoting it either because it restricts, by virtue of an artificially higher price, the amount of corn which would otherwise be sold to non-ethanol users.

Therefore, when it comes to having an understanding of basic economic principles, I'm sorry, but you are batting zero for two.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The USA was "guilty as Hell" in the corn countervail action, yet political decisions intervened to the allow the "dumping because of USA subsidies" to continue to this day much to the joy of Canadian livestock producers. The point is livestock producers don't care about a level playing field for corn producers, their job is to buy corn as cheap and as below cost of production as possible. Meanwhile, Canadian livestock producers have and continue to receive buckets of camouflaged subsidy payments which could be deemed as "dumping subsidies" subject to countervail.

Who can expect a think tank to be profitable if you're only given a penny for your thoughts?

Here is the full sunshine list. Name is followed by salary ranking in the organization, position, salary and benefits. These non-profit organizations are profit indeed. They create a small entity simply because they are dissatisfied with government salary, where the pay is fairly reasonable. And, then they ask grant from the government (tax-buyers money). And, then the big bosses decide their salary. Indeed source of income inequality and resource wastage.

Name Salary Ranking Position Salary Benefits
TRAVIS BANKS 11 Principal Investigator, Bioinformatics and Gene Technology $104,537.02 $9,425.26
JAMES BRANDLE 1 Chief Executive Officer $282,871.47 $55,410.28
MICHAEL BROWNBRIDGE 4 Research Chair, Discovery and Adaptation of Ornamentals $170,117.30 $15,235.00
RUMEN CONEV 9 Principal Investigator, Horticultural Crop Breeding $112,910.92 $9,905.41
LANA CULLEY 8 Business Development Officer $116,053.72 $10,283.04
BERNARD GOYETTE 7 Research Scientist, Post Harvest Science $116,751.36 $10,436.29
ISABELLE LESSCHAEVE 5 Research Chair, Sensory and Consumer Sciences $160,732.05 $13,795.61
GARY MOFFATT 6 Chief Operating Officer $153,832.45 $13,834.22
VALERIO PRIMOMO 10 Research Scientist, Vegetable Breeding $107,597.04 $9,591.53
DARYL SOMERS 2 Research Director, Department of Applied Genomics $172,023.47 $15,174.02
JOHN VAN DE VEGTE 3 Project Manager, Robotics and Automation $170,301.37 $15,451.72

I would say they are just trying to catch up with OPA , OPG , Hydro One , OMAFRA and a few others .

Top Guelph employer, George Morris Centre, is gone for good?

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.