The Business of Food: Malawi

FAO in Malawi

HST Helps BC Farmers Reduce Costs

Now that we have had the time to try out the HST system, I have to admit that I like it. I am not a big fan of taxation but can see some definite advantages for farmers and small businesses.

Before HST, farmers had to deal with two tax agencies. All farmers who had farm tax status which allows for a property tax reduction, were declared "bona fide" farmers by the provincial government. These farmers could have a PST exemption on certain farm inputs, and this exemption was usually declared at the point of purchase Quite simple, but you had to either have your farm card on you, or have your farm business and farm number on file with the seller. Some farmers would also be federally registered, with business numbers that would allow them to file GST. Since food products are tax exempt and no PST or GST is charged to the buyer, the end result would be a benefit to the farmer who would file the Input Tax Credits and receive a refund from the federal government. The list of allowable input items was different for each agency, with the federal government allowing a greater number of tax exempt items.

After HST, the whole procedure was greatly simplified and the farmer is able to claim input tax credits on more items. Much, much, better.




For small businesses, before HST there were two agencies to deal with. The provincial PST system required collected and collectable provincial taxes from sales to be in government hands each month, three weeks after the end of the month. The government didn't care if you couldn't collect from all your customers by that time - they wanted their cut, and if you were late or short, watch out. Businesses would register with suppliers so that they could be exempted from the PST on their inputs. Not everything would be charged PST - some sales items like services, trucking, most food, etc. were not charged PST. PST was at 7% in BC for the last several years.

The federal government created GST several years ago - I think it was actually meant to be temporary - and the filing periods varied with the size of the business. The GST system allowed for input tax credits to be claimed so that you could reduce the amount of taxes paid to the government. Everything had the GST attached to it. GST had been going down - from 7, to 6, and then 5%.

Actually, the new HST system is just like the GST system, except now the PST is added on so the HST is 12%. If the efficiencies to government are as big as government claims, they should be reducing the provincial portion of the HST just like the GST was reduced.

As someone who deals with some bookeeping, I see an advantage to the small business. Having one agency to deal with saves time and reduces one headache. I know that for businesses that did not previously have to charge PST it can reduce net sales. People may eat out less, not appreciate the apparent increased trucking costs, or cost to sell their house, or other services affected. Hopefully these wrinkles will smooth out.

What some people don't appreciate is that small businesses collect taxes from their customers and hand the taxes over to the government.  Small business works for the government in this way, and although it sounds simple when stated like that, it involves getting the customers to pay on time so that you can pay the government, filling out paperwork, filing the paperwork on time, dealing with audits, and keeping up with the rules and regulations.  For businesses that charge both PST and GST,  the HST system is much better.

I can see that one downside for local farmers will be to those who sell directly to restaurants. The restaurants will still have the benefit of major inputs (food) that do not have any HST attached. However, the restaurants will also have the downside of charging HST on meal, and may try to have farmers drop their prices, or may bypass local food suppliers altogether and go with a cheaper source of food.

As farmers, we are also consumers, so there is that part of the puzzle to ponder. The months we have had the HST in operation has given us an idea of its impact on our daily lives. For me, I don't spend a lot on junk food or restaurant meals. The government website and the easy to read report have been helpful to me, and I recommend everyone to give it a look and decide for yourself.

Tomatosphere!!

We were planting all of our old seeds, and had a beat up package from an old home school project from my two oldest sons.  The seeds were from nine years ago, when they participated in Tomatosphere, a project linking space and agriculture and kids. The seeds, although old, sprouted and are growing into some strange shapes so I connected with the Tomatosphere folks this morning by email to see if my nine year old Isaac could participate.
Tomatosphere is sponsored by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Space Agency, Heinz Canada Ltd, HeinzSeed, Ontario Centres of Excellence, Stokes Seeds and the University of Guelph.
From their website:

"Over the past nine years, Tomatosphere has evolved into a regular component of the curriculum for more than 12 400 classrooms in Canada and the United States. The Tomatosphere Project Team will continue offering this stellar learning opportunity for at least 2011 through 2014.

Seeds for 2011 have been subjected to a simulated space environment at the University of Guelph. This simulation is outlined in the Teacher's Guide – Seed Treatment for 2011. The "storyline" behind this simulation will provide teachers with an excellent introduction to the program for 2011.

The basic experiment of Tomatosphere will remain for the next year – a 'blind test' in which you and your students will not know the treatment of the seeds until completion of the germination process and submission of results. Students will learn how to conduct a scientific experiment and compare the germination rates of the seeds. They may also report on the growth and development of their plants... and may be inspired to pursue further education in science and technology.
Watching these seeds grow will encourage classroom dialogue about the elements of life support requirements for space missions - food, water, oxygen and the need to consume carbon dioxide exhaled by crewmembers. Traveling to and from Mars - the closest planet to Earth - could take almost three years. It's imperative to know how to grow food for the journey there, the stay on Mars and the return journey. The results from your science experiments will help Canadian scientists to understand some of the issues related to long-term space travel.
Optional units are also available for grade 6 and 9, dealing with weather, nutrition and life on Mars.
Tomatoes are practical and valuable plants for space applications. They provide wholesome nourishment, as well as purified water through evaporation from their leaves. Today's students are the plant specialists, space scientists and Mars explorers of the future! The technical support staff and even the astronauts for future space travel may be in your classroom today! You and your students will not be disappointed in being part of a REAL science project that involves them in providing assistance for future space travel."

---

The partners in Tomatosphere have developed new optional units for teachers and students - new components that are science-related but also linked to other areas in the curriculum:

• Grades 3-4: How to Feed a Martian - a unit with a nutrition focus for astronauts' trips to the Red Planet
• Grade 6: Surviving on the Red Planet - Recycling breathable air
• Grades 7-8: The Martian environment - a weather station on Mars
• Grades 9-10: The Energy to Survive - nutritional requirements for long duration missions

---

Canadian Federal Election 2011 - Agriculture Debate with a Gulf Islands perspective

Elizabeth May might have been left out from the boys club, but the Greens were welcomed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture who hosted the National Agriculture Leader's Debate on April 11 and held it live on their website (it can be seen at http://www.cfa-fca.ca/national-agriculture-leaders-debate-live) Conservative Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz, long time Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter, Pat Martin from the NDP (stepping in for Alex Atamanenko from BC who is the NDP agriculture critic), Andre Bellavance for the Bloc Quebecois, and Kate Storey for the Green Party presented their party platforms for agriculture and debated the issues.

The CFA was pleased to see food and agriculture part of each party platform. The CFA was especially pleased to hear several of the speakers agree on the importance for a National Food Strategy, which would be a long term plan for food and agriculture in Canada and something the CFA has been working on. The long term nature of the strategy is important to farmers and consumers, who have been demanding change in the food system.

The debate was a lot like a pot luck, as were all the debates. Something for everyone, with often the same ingredients in each dish, but a slightly different recipe. Some ideas were a little hard to swallow, or hard to digest. Others had great appeal to farmers. Questions were asked by farmers across Canada, via pre-recorded video. The questions were on topics drawn from the CFA membership, which represents farm organizations across Canada.

Gerry Ritz presented the Conservative “farmer first principles” which is primarily a trade-based, standard business approach to agriculture, which views Canada's strength in agriculture as an exporter of high quality commodity products, along with the stability of domestic supply management. The Conservative government have proposed $50 million in an Agricultural Innovation Initiative and $100 million to food safety. The Conservatives were criticized for their attempts at dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board. The other leaders did not see how supply management could stand at the WTO negotiations if the CWB single desk mandate was removed. Now, the Conservatives have stepped back on that issue and are only talking about having choice in marketing options for barley farmers. The Liberals also support trade initiatives, innovation and food safety but propose a ground-up approach involving farmers needs first, instead of trade obligations first. The Liberals and NDP both had well thought out long range food strategies, which acknowledge the role of food in both health and environmental policies, and recognize the importance of going beyond the five year plans proposed by the Conservatives. The Liberal strategy was adopted from a food and agriculture policy in this riding, and the NDP strategy was from BC's Alex Atamanenko's two year, 28 community trek across Canada interviewing 1000 farmers and citizens. The Green food platform is based on decentralized local, organic food with food exports only in emergency aid or fair trade situations and a goal of 85% food production to be domestic, instead of the current 80% for export. The Green strategy was revealed April 18, emphasizing that there would be no funding for biotechnology and no genetically modified organisms.

Of the farmers who asked questions across Canada, the one from BC would be of particular interest to farmers in the Gulf Islands. Gurinder Cheema is a teacher and farmer in the Fraser Valley. Her family has field crops and also grow greenhouse vegetables for BC Hothouse. Her farm has a creek with a species of fish that is part of a recovery strategy by DFO under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). According to Cheema, the riparian habitat was destroyed by the surrounding housing developments, not by the farms. The irony is that the farmers are doing a good job of protecting the habitat and are being asked to do more at their own cost. It is in society's interest for species and their habitat to be protected, so it was asked if the various parties propose to stand up for farmers and compensate them on any on-farm changes necessary to protect species at risk and their habitat, and do the parties propose to maintain and enhance the Environmental Farm Plans with financial incentives for ecological goods and services. All of the candidates agreed that farmers should not be asked to bear the costs of habitat protection and should be compensated. All were in support of the Environmental Farm Plan program.

It is tough to condense the complexities of farming into simple policy statements. So much of our agriculture is export oriented, such as our grain. This is on the opposite end of the spectrum from supply-managed milk, eggs and poultry, and direct-marketed local food, and complicates things at the federal level.

But what about the local level? So much of our agriculture in the Gulf Islands is local, and what federal policy changes could support local food? Support for Protected Geographical Indicators is one way – for unique local foods. There is work being done in this area across Canada, and there is one PGI for lamb in Quebec already.

But one little municipality in the US no bigger than most Gulf Islands has taken a stand for food sovereignty, at the local level, and has used federal and state statutes to support this initiative. The town of Sedgwick, Maine, population 1,012 said that how they produce food , process food, and distribute food locally is up to them and they have passed a Food Sovereignty ordinance. The ordinance allows buyer and seller to enter their own agreement which overrides state and federal regulations when dealing with transactions involving local foods Our local federal candidates, Gary Lunn (Conservative), Renee Hetherington (Liberal), Edith Loring-Kuhanga (NDP) and Elizabeth May (Green) all gave their support for local food at a  recent all candidates meeting.. Perhaps one of the changes we need at the federal level, is greater autonomy at the local level.

**Here is a link to a CBC podcast with four BC federal candidates (Ed Fast, Alex Atamanenko, Renee Hetherington and Brennan Wauters) discussing agricultural issues that concern farmers in BC  click on link and scroll 1/3 of the way into the podcast

Former President Clinton: Ag Has Solution to Worldwide Problems

Former President Clinton: Ag Has Solution to Worldwide Problems

http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/2011_Speeches/clinton.html CLICK TO HEAR THE SPEECH

FROM FARMS.COM - USDA PRESS. Former President Bill Clinton makes remarks at the World Agricultural Outlook Board Forum in Arlington, VA on Thursday, February 24, 2011.

Three major problems plague the world today and what happens in agriculture will help shape the resolution of these issues, according to former President Bill Clinton.

The president — speaking before a crowd of 2,000 attendees at the 2011 Agricultural Outlook Forum held last week in Arlington, Va. — said that agriculture will play a major role in aiding the world during troubled times, but serious decisions need to be made, not just “happy talk.”

“We are living in a highly complicated environment,” said Clinton, who recognized inequality, an unstable environment and unsustainable environment as worldwide issues that need a solution. “These problems are quite significant. They affect rural America, they affect farmers and they affect the ability of people who are family farmers to keep farming.”

Clinton said there is too much inequality in the world. One problem in the U.S., he noted is that prior to the new health care law being passed, 17.2 percent of the national income was spent on health care that only covered 84 percent of the population.

“No other wealthy country of any size spent any more than 10 and a half percent,” said Clinton. “If we had any other country’s health system we would spend a trillion dollars less on health care, which could be put into the incomes of ordinary people.”

He added that inequality the threat of terrorism and political upheavals in the Middle East makes predictability hard and creates an unstable atmosphere. These issues are large factors on the farm along with an unsustainable environment caused by climate change and resource depletion.

With the world population expected to grow from six to nine billion by 2040, American farmers will need to be able to feed the population and still provide enough food for exports and make money, according to Clinton. But there needs to be a balance and the ability to help other countries support themselves and the world population through agriculture.

“Somehow we had this idea that we could help developing countries move into the industrial age without agriculture,” said Clinton. Through his foundation, Clinton said he has helped countries in Africa and Latin America start agricultural projects that have provided income to impoverished areas. “We try hard to help people find ways to help themselves when the economy is not good,” he said.

Yet, the rapidly growing population around the world has got to find a way to feed itself today and in the future. The solution, according to Clinton, is to educate more girls and give them access to more work, which will help slow the birth rate.

“We want to live in a world that we can share with other people and be rewarded by it,” said Clinton. “This is an exciting time to be alive. Go make the most of it.”

What's in a Name? Why "Agriculture" is a dirty word at universities

So what is the relationship between the declining enrollment in agriculture faculties around North America, and the trend in dropping the word "agriculture" in many universities?  I think there is a direct relationship. My own alma mater, the University of British Columbia, did this a few years back, taking up the moniker "Land and Food Systems" instead. I was not impressed. Of course, the dean was a landscape architect so what could I expect. And BC is not a major agriculture province, with only 5% of the land base in the provincially zoned Agriculture Land Reserve. (But wouldn't that make agriculture even more important?)
But at least the degree, a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, or B.Sc (Agr) was left intact.
But, no. There was still an increased decline in interest in the agriculture/agroecology portion of the program. So out went the B.Sc.(Agr) and in came applied biology.
I think any student serious about studying agriculture probably headed to one of the prairie universities, or perhaps good old University of Guelph in Ontario.

Some universities who debated the name change, the declining enrollment, and held off on making that big change are thankful they didn't. In Nebraska, the name Agriculture was held onto proudly. The result? Enrollment is at an all time high. A 25% increase in proud-to-be-Agriculture students from 2000 to 20009.
When I attended UBC back in 1977 to 1981, we were all proud to be Aggies in our blue and yellow sweaters. We knew what was important, even back then. I remember the Dean coming back from meetings with the head of the University, worrying about our small but vital faculty. Once I left for graduate school, on the advice of my UBC profs, I heard about faculties losing positions to attrition. As profs retired, positions folded, eventually faculties folded. I was in the Department of Poultry Science, one of the first to fold into the Animal Science Department. The last professor hired when I was in my third or fourth year, Dr. Kim Cheng, is the only remaining Poultry professor left. I am sure, with all of the advances made in Poultry Science in the years leading up to the Poultry Dept.'s slow death, there were decision makers who probably thought everything that we needed to know about poultry production was already known, all the discoveries already discovered.....
Ok, let's fast forward to avian flu. To demands for cage-free systems that require more research in animal welfare to ensure poultry management recommendations are based on good research. To demands for feed systems that meet new feed regulations. Who is doing that? Is the university teaching that?
Or is it appealing to a market-based, student-as-consumer program, instead of the student being the product of the educational system.
This week I am going back to UBC as a mentor in the "Beyond the BSc" program - what should I tell them?? Stay tuned.........


CBC Commentary - FarmCentre.com

What’s in a name?

By Dave Schmidt

November 16, 2009

Food is a hot topic but agriculture, it seems, is not.
After decades of declining enrolment, the agriculture department at the University of British Columbia came up with an inspired solution: Stop using the word agriculture.
So down came the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences signs and up went ones reading Land and Food Systems. Ten years later, the department has 1,180 students – the third largest number in the country, even though its staff of 42 makes it the smallest of Canada’s eight ag faculties.
Food has proven popular, with most students enrolling in the Food Nutrition and Health program. Global Resource Systems also seems to resonate with potential students. But UBC’s third program – Agroecology – is a bust, having lost 90 per cent of its enrolment in the past six years.
Anything labeled ‘agri’ just isn’t seen as a good career path, says Art Bomke, one of the Agroecology professors.
Name game
So this summer, UBC sign-makers were busy again – taking down Agroecology signs and putting up Applied Biology ones. The switch came too late to make an impact on this year’s freshman class numbers but the university plans to market the renamed program heavily and expects enrollment to rebound.
While agriculture is not sexy, food and farming is. At the same time as switching its name to Land & Food Systems, UBC students revived its derelict farm at the south end of the sprawling campus and turned it into an urbanite’s version of farming: chickens scratching in the ground, small vegetable gardens, a few bees and a lot of trees. Now grown to 12-hectares, the Farm attracts 20,000 visitors a year, including 2,000 students involved in the 35 research projects and 50 courses connected to it. The Farm produces 200 different crops and Saturday market days attract as many as 700 people.
So what does all this tell us?
Well, urban people obviously are eager to spend time on a farm and they love local food. They’re even willing to get their hands in the dirt for a few minutes every week. But take agriculture seriously enough to make it a career? Not a chance!
For CBC commentary, I'm Dave Schmidt, a freelance agriculture writer in Chilliwack, B.C.

And another take on the issue from the US....

Agriculture is not a dirty word

This essay, written by Dr. Allen Levine, (pictured at left) dean of the College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn., is reprinted from the May 28, 2009 issue of Science Magazine online version.

Agricultural science is ripe for a Renaissance. For too many years, the agriculture sciences have been disparaged in the science and education communities, perhaps because agronomy, soil science, plant pathology, and animal science use a problem-solving approach rather than simply seeking knowledge.

When science research funds are handed out—for example, in the federal stimulus bill—agriculture often gets left off the list. I suspect this is because policy-makers and some scientists see “agriculture” as synonymous with “agribusiness,” rather than as a purely scientific discipline, and they assume private funding will take care of agriculture-related research needs. Agricultural scientists at land-grant institutions do receive some research dollars from noncompetitive sources, but not all research is funded this way.

Adding insult to injury, the major U.S. science journals don’t devote specific sections or editors to agricultural research. Some schools of agriculture have taken the word “agriculture” out of their names, presumably to attract more students in a country where only 2% of the population farms. (It hasn’t worked: Enrollment in university agricultural science majors has dropped steadily nationwide since the early 1980s.)

In short, agricultural science has an image problem. Our disciplines are not considered relevant and, more disturbing, we’re not seen as a source of solutions to many of the world’s most pressing challenges, even though many of those challenges directly relate to agricultural science. That’s unfortunate, particularly in a world where people are starving or eating unsafe food, where climate change will affect every aspect of 21st-century life, and where new kinds of sustainable fuel are needed.

The urgency of these global issues—all of them related to the agricultural sciences—amplifies the need for an applied-science approach. Agricultural scientists can do amazing things when they combine their expertise and have access to the resources they need. Recently, scientists at an international conference in Mexico announced that they have found a wheat variety that is resistant to Ug99—a strain of stem rust that could affect up to 90% of the world’s wheat. Although the scientists have not completely eliminated the threat, it’s clearly a breakthrough with enormous implications.

Other recent signs also point to a renewed interest in and respect for agriculture. When the first lady plants a vegetable garden on the White House lawn for the first time in half a century, she’s sending a strong message: Food is important. Books about eating a sustainable, healthy diet top our best-seller lists. The National Gardening Association expects a 19% jump in the number of people growing at least some of their own food this year. Clearly, a growing number of Americans are interested in where their food comes from, even on a small scale.

The 2008 Farm Bill creates the National Institute for Food and Agriculture, which will be headed by a distinguished scientist directly appointed by the president. A small thing, perhaps, but it elevates agriculture to a level of prominence along the lines of health and other sciences. The farm bill also increases funding for competitive grants in both basic and applied agricultural research, which will provide opportunities for advanced study.

Enrollment is up 16% since 2005 among college students in the professional associations that specialize in soil and crop sciences and agronomy, which suggests that today’s students are interested in learning more about agricultural and environmental issues. Job prospects also are good; the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that employment for agricultural and food scientists will be at least average overall and much higher than average in some specialties.

In the long run, does it really matter whether “agricultural scientists” are what we call the people who ensure a safe and plentiful food supply, clean water, and healthy soil? Maybe not, as long as this critical work is funded and accomplished. But as we move into a new era of shared accountability and responsibility, let’s keep in mind that agricultural sciences affect us all, and when agricultural science is thriving, our communities likely are thriving, too.

Contact information:
Allen S. Levine, College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108–6074, USA, and Minnesota Obesity Center, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA, e-mail: aslevine@umn.edu

Year in Review

    We are starting the year here in the Gulf Islands with excellent clear, sunny and cold weather, and I plan to spend the afternoon outside tidying up the farm and checking animals before the chores need to be done.  Part of tidying up means sorting paper and computer files, so I am taking a bit of time to do this while I warm up.

    I started this blog in May of 2010, mostly as a way to post my columns "The Farmer's Stand" for The Islands Independent newspaper.  Part of the blog are items of interest that I have found regarding farming and farm issues.  There are so many things changing these days, and food is of more interest to many people.  This puts added pressure on farmers, who are declining in numbers but not in importance.  I don't have a crystal ball for 2011, so it is probably safe to say we will see more of the same, with some unexpected changes thrown in.:)

    Since May, this blog has been viewed over 4,500 times - about half of those viewings from Canada, with the balance from the US, UK, Germany, Russia, Australia, Netherlands, Slovenia, Israel, China, New Zealand, France, Denmark, Italy, India, Georgia, Ireland, Czech Republic, Phillipines, Hungary, Sweden, Spain, Japan, Poland, Barbados, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, Mali, Croata, South Africa and many other countries.

     Last month there were close to 1000 views, and almost 50 today alone!  The internet world gives us the opportunity to share our perspectives with others and gives others in the same boat some reinforcement and encouragement.

Best wishes in 2011 to all in our global island, from me on Pender Island.

Country Guide - article on truth behind young people and ag by Gord Gilmour

Monday, November 08, 2010 | 

By Gord Gilmour, CG Associate Editor

FARMAGEDDON

http://www.agcanada.com/Article.aspx?ID=30427

By now we’ve all seen the reports and the newspaper stories. It doesn’t matter exactly which ones. They’re all more or less the same, starting with the “fact” that tens of billions of dollars of farm assets must somehow be transferred to the next generation of farm operators over the next few years.
Is it really a “fact?” And if it is, is it really going to cause massive upheaval in Canada’s farm sector?
Take the recent report from Statistics Canada as an example. Based on the 2008 Farm Financial Survey, the federal number cruncher lays the scope of the issue out in black and white: 53 per cent of the farms in Canada are operated by a farmer 55 years of age or older. Those farmers hold the majority — about $134 billion — of Canada’s total farm assets of $247 billion.
“Most of those are expected to retire over the next 15 years. Consequently Canadian agriculture will lose significant expertise as these operators retire,” reads the report in part.
That StatsCan report isn’t the only one out there. It’s just among the latest.
One of the first salvos in the farm succession challenge came from Guelph’s George Morris Centre about 10 years ago. Larry Martin was the lead author on the report, which told agriculture that it should expect huge asset turnover — as much as $50 billion — and as many as 120,000 farmers of pensionable age by 2010.
Martin’s report was one of the catalysts creating a whole trend towards fretting over farm succession in Canada, and over the past decade it has seen governments and farm organizations press for bigger, better and costlier programs.
But when Country Guide contacted Martin about the study, he spoke frankly about its limitations.
“I think if I were asked to write that report today, I’d either say no, or I’d write a completely different report,” Martin says candidly.
New thinking
The talk of big dollars turning over and a greying farm population is fine as far as it goes — and it remains an accurate portrayal of the most experienced and established farmers in the country. But that talk fails to address other, more heartening trends that Martin now sees eddying below the surface in the up-and-coming generation.
“I’m not worried about attracting good young people to agriculture in Canada — not one little bit,” Martin says. “The quality and skill level of the new generation of farm managers I’m meeting is just phenomenal.”
Martin meets a new crop every year through the centre’s Canadian Total Excellence in Agriculture Management program, which offers a group of predominantly younger producers an annual ongoing educational and networking opportunity. He says based on this experience, he’s convinced there’s a new breed of farm manager sinking their roots in Canadian soil.
Martin says these managers are frequently farm kids coming home in their 30s after an extensive off-farm career, or even high-powered professionals with no direct connection to the farm. They’re bringing innovative new management ideas that accomplish a lot of things, including finding ways around the seemingly perpetual problem of financing the establishment and growth of a new farm.
One of Canada’s top agriculture lenders echoes that sentiment. Rémi Lemoine, chief operating officer of Farm Credit Canada (FCC), tells Country Guide that succession planning isn’t something that can be ignored — but there aren’t any signs that it’s a pending crisis either.
After all, the StatsCan numbers are talking about the industry in its totality, and while they’re an important piece of context, each succession plan is unique and finds its own innovative way past these hurdles. Lemoine describes a fast-changing landscape where young farmers are open to new ways of doing business that their predecessors never even considered. He doesn’t quite come out and call it a generation gap, but it becomes clear as he speaks that this is exactly what he’s describing.
“When I was coming into the business in the 1980s — I’ve been in agriculture lending for more than 25 years — there was this idea that you had to own all the assets,” Lemoine explains. “You bought the assets and paid them off as quickly as possible, even if you struggled on the income side.
“The new operators today are much more open to different ideas like long-term rental arrangements,” Lemoine says. “In many cases they’d prefer someone else carry some of the risk of land ownership, and they’d prefer to make their investments in other areas.”
Cameron Short, executive director of the policy division of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), agrees farm transfer is a big dollar issue — but he joins his counterparts in questioning the occasionally overhyped nature of the discussion. In fact farmers don’t tend to turn 65 and pull the pin. They’re engaged in a business they enjoy and few of them circle their 65th birthday on the calendar as some sort of escape plot.
“To the average farmer, turning 65 isn’t some magic number,” says Short. “They’re like most small business owners in that way. Many of them really like farming, they’ll continue long after they’re 65, and they’ll retire gradually.”
That trend dovetails nicely with the realities of farmland ownership in Canada. In many cases retiring farmers are, not unnaturally, reluctant to turn their backs on a lifetime’s work by selling their land. Many of them prefer to retain ownership through their retirement years, relying on the rental income to supplement government pensions and other investments.
And eventually, when the retired farmers pass away, more and more of their children are opting to retain land ownership.
“I think that’s something you’re going to see more and more,” says Martin. “It’s become very common down in the U.S., where you might see someone who lives and works in Denver owning and renting out what was the family farm in Iowa.”
In most cases that land goes to another local farm, but Martin says there are also farm management companies in some parts of the U.S. that will manage the day-to-day farm operations for landowners as well, something that could potentially emerge on this side of the border in a big way. And then there’s also the issue of outside investors.
“There are a number of operations, some in Ontario, some on the Prairies, whose business plan is to buy land and hold it long term and rent it back to farmers,” Martin says. “They say they will be — and they appear to be — holding it long term.”
All of these one-off solutions give just a hint as to some of the ways the farms of tomorrow will grow and thrive despite the challenge of farm asset transfer.
Getting started
Putting such strategies to work means sitting down to honestly evaluate the operation and the goals of the various family members who will be affected by any future succession plan. Starting early gives operators and heirs time to manage tax implications and to adopt strategies ranging from downsizing to using insurance to offset farm asset inheritances.
There’s only one problem — nobody wants to do it. Elaine Froese is a farm family business coach, public speaker and consultant who works closely with families to conquer some of the interpersonal issues that inevitably surround any attempt to talk these issues through. She spoke to Country Guide recently by telephone from her family’s operation near Boissevain, Man.
“These topics are very, very sensitive ones, especially these days, with so many zeros trailing around behind all the numbers,” Froese says. “The value of farms has gotten so much greater over the past few years.”
Froese also says that the farm community is, generally speaking, not necessarily well equipped to have these discussions. Farm operators and their families tend to be hard workers and problem solvers, but they also as a rule tend to be more comfortable with technical rather than interpersonal challenges.
“We don’t deal with these issues very well at all,” Froese says. “We prefer to push them off as long as possible.”
But that’s a terrible strategy, she says, because no matter how invincible any of us may feel, the day will come when our will is opened up. And if the issues aren’t talked through ahead of time, someone could be surprised and angered — and the fact that they’ll likely be grieving at the same time will raise the stakes even higher. Froese says she’s seen plenty of examples first hand of families being irrevocably fractured.
Abe Toews grew up on a dairy farm near the city of Steinbach in southern Manitoba. These days he operates StoneCreek Financial Group in Regina, where he advises businesses of all type about business issues including succession planning. Like all succession advisers, Toews told Country Guide that there’s a right way to do these things and a wrong way.
“I’ve been involved in and seen some really good plans, and others that were, well… not good,” Toews says. “And when it’s not good, it can really be a disaster.”
Both Toews and Froese had no shortage of horror stories to share — something they say is a reality for anyone who’s in the business. Assets can get hung up for years at times, leaving multimillion-dollar businesses twisting in the wind. Siblings can refuse to speak to each other for years on end. Or lawsuits start flying, eating up the hard work of a lifetime.
Toews agrees that sitting down and talking frankly about these issues with family members is the first and most important step. He also says that doing it now allows a farm operator to explain a few of the facts of life to non-farming heirs, facts such as the reality of needing to keep assets together to ensure that the business remains viable, and the contribution that the farming heirs have made over the years to building the business.
“It’s the old question of fair versus equal,” Toews says. “In a lot of cases, an equal division of assets would actually be very unfair to the farming heir.”
Making the headlines
While the big numbers in the farm succession reports are grabbing all the attention, the people in the know say there’s the danger that the problem is being overblown a bit.
AAFC’s Cameron Short says one issue that’s frequently overlooked is just what definition is used to determine what’s a farm. In a lot of cases there are farms with tiny annual sales — about $10,000 for example — that are included in the global industry figures.
“A lot of these small, hobby-type operations actually hold a surprising amount of the total value of the assets,” Short says.
That’s because they tend to be retirement or hobby enterprises that are clustered in desirable areas or around major cities, where other forces like general real estate pressures have a major effect on asset values.
Farm Credit Canada’s Rémi Lemoine says there also appears to be little evidence that young farmers who do want money to purchase assets are having trouble finding it. He cites his organization’s loan portfolio as just one example.
“Last year about 34 per cent of the loans we made were to people under 40 years of age,” Lemoine says. “And those have been loans to every possible type and model of farm operation.”
In fact, Lemoine says one of his growing concerns these days isn’t the scope of the farm succession issue. It’s that the industry is paying too much attention to this picture and risks painting an unattractive self-portrait at a time it needs to sell itself to new entrants.
“If I’ve learned one thing over the years, it’s that bad news gets out very quickly and good news doesn’t,” Lemoine says. “Sometimes I think this doesn’t project the industry in a very good light and it might actually scare new entrants, rather than attract them.”CG
---------
“ The quality and skill level of the new generation of farm managers i’m meeting is just phenomenal.” — Larry Martin
---------
It Turns Out The New Generation Is Making Business Moves Their Parents Never Dreamed Of
AgCanada

"Empires of Food" Why our agricultural empire will fall - Sustainable food - Salon.com

Why our agricultural empire will fall - Sustainable food - Salon.com

A review of "Empires of Food - Feast, Famine, and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations" by Evan Fraser and Andrew Rimas.

"There is a really interesting tension at play here. In order for us to produce food locally or use fewer fertilizers or pay better wages, we need people to be more interested in what they're eating and where it's coming from. But in the West, this has turned food into a fashion item. Instead, we need them to be invested in food without trivializing it or turning it into a trend. We need to think about unsexy but ultimately more practical solutions, like food storage and maintaining food capacity, if we want to protect ourselves for the future." Riddhi Shaw

Is it Organic? - Liberals destroy agriculture in B.C.-by Mischa Popoff - Opionion Piece

http://www.isitorganic.ca/liberals_destroy_agriculture_in_bc

Thanks to the B.C. Liberals, this province is now the only jurisdiction in North America that squeezes local meat production right out of business. We now import almost all our meat in B.C.  With no evidence whatsoever that meat from provincial facilities was unsafe, Don Davidson, the point man on the Liberal’s Meat Industry “Enhancement” Strategy, accused B.C. farmers of hauling sick and dead animals to local abattoirs to be processed for human consumption. Instead of sending out inspectors on surprise inspections to see whether this was true, an expensive provincial inspection regime was forced onto the backs of B.C. meat-processors. It mirrors the top-heavy system used in huge, federally inspected facilities. You know… the same system that let the 2008 listeriosis outbreak at Maple Leaf slip by that resulted in 23 deaths. Yeah, that one!
  The Liberals picked a few winners and gave them grants and low-interest loans so they could purchase new computers, renovate their facilities by adding offices and showers for their new federal-provincial inspectors, and hire staff to keep up with all the new “safety” bureaucracy. Feel better yet?
  In spite of this generosity with your tax money, the Minister of Agriculture at the time, Pat Bell, and Premier Campbell still found they faced a backlash as provincial meat processors closed down in droves. So they decided to launch workshops through the Ministry of Health to promote local food!
  This was a brilliant political move since Health had nothing to do with the destruction of local food production that was being carried out simultaneously over in the Ministry of Agriculture. Ironically though, local meat production used to be the jurisdiction of provincial health authorities. But, citing cost-overruns, health authorities claimed they could no longer inspect the handful of meat processors in this province, even though they manage to keep a MUCH larger number of restaurants safe, along with daycares, swimming pools and drinking water systems. No matter. To save money, meat production was shifted from Health to Agriculture. And yet, miraculously, Health bureaucrats somehow managed to find money in their budgets to run the local food workshops that Bell and Campbell ordered.
  If you’re wondering how Health authorities know the food they’re promoting is actually local, safe and (the big money-maker) certified organic, well… it turns out there would be no surprise inspections, no tests, just piles of paperwork! While the Liberals cracked down on local meat, they were completely lackadaisical on all other forms of local food production. Gross negligence or fraud, it’s all perfectly acceptable as long as the appearance of “local food security” is upheld.
  Restaurants are inspected on a surprise basis with routine testing; why not farms? Didn’t this all start because local farmers were allegedly feeding carrion to the public? No matter…just fill out the paperwork, pay your damn fees and everything will be fine! Imagine if daycares, swimming pools and drinking water systems were overseen so carelessly.
  After a couple years of this duplicity the NDP finally decided local food was something they should get behind and launched a private member’s bill which, instead of challenging any of the Liberals’ bureaucratic stratagem, proposes to work within it. Great…
  Steve Thomson, Bell’s replacement as Minister of Agriculture, responds to such lighthearted criticism from the NDP on local food by pointing to all the money his party has thrown into B.C. AgriTourism! Right… like tourism is going to save farming in this province. What a crock…
  Thomson runs a ministry that’s supposed to help farmers, and yet he can’t bring himself to do the one thing that would actually help farmers in this province: repeal his party’s punitive Meat Industry “Enhancement” Strategy. And apparently the NDP can’t be bothered to suggest this either.
  We’re left with one gang of bureaucrats bashing local farmers while another pretends to prop them up. After thousands of farmers stopped raising livestock in this province because there’s nowhere to process it, the Opposition decided to support what remains of local food production because it makes them look good. And the deception is being carried out to the tune of hundreds of millions of your tax dollars.
  I hope you’re not eating while you read this because no matter how this plays out you can rest assured the only winner in the end will be the government. It’s enough to make you puke.

Portions of this column are republished with permission from Field to Plate magazine, Spring/Summer Edition.
Mischa Popoff

is a freelance political writer with a degree in history. He can be heard on Kelowna’s AM 1150 on Friday mornings between 9 and 10.

Rising Carbon emissions threaten crop yields and food security

Crop yields are under threat from rising carbon dioxide emissions with climate change, according to new scientific research. In a new study published in Science on wheat and the mustard plant Arabidopsis at the University of California at Davis, scientists found that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide interferes with plants’ ability to convert nitrate into protein resulting in lower nutritional yield.
Related: Koalas face starvation, extinction due to climate change

This has implications for global food production, food nutritional quality and food security. It effects not only humans but the animal ecosystems dependant on current plant physiologies.

"Our findings suggest that scientists cannot examine the response of crops to global climate change simply in terms of rising carbon dioxide levels or higher temperatures,” said lead author Arnold Bloom, a professor in UC Davis’ Department of Plant Sciences.

“Instead, we must consider shifts in plant nitrogen use that will alter food quality and even pest control, as lower protein levels in plants will force both people and pests to consume more plant material to meet their nutritional requirements," Bloom said.

As climate change intensifies, careful management of nitrogen fertilization by farmers will become critical to reduce losses in crop productivity and quality, according to the research.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased by 39 percent since 1800, and on current projections will increase by an additional 40 to 140 percent by the end of the century.

Plants require nitrogen, mostly in the form of nitrates in the soil, to survive and grow. Research has shown that when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase by 50 percent, the nitrogen status of plants declines significantly.

“This indicates that as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise and nitrate assimilation in plant tissues diminishes, crops will become depleted in organic nitrogen compounds, including protein, and food quality will suffer,” Bloom said. “Increasing nitrogen fertilization might compensate for slower nitrate assimilation rates, but this might not be economically or environmentally feasible.”

"One fear is insect outbreaks will become more extensive, because the insects will have to eat more to meet nutritional needs." Arnold Bloom told the ABC. (Listen to a podcast interview with Arnold Bloom)

As plants absorb more carbon dioxide, levels of plant nutrition will go down and for some toxin levels will go up. So crops will have less nutritional yield which will mean humans or other animals will need to eat more to get the same level of nutrition. Plants will put more energy into defensive systems such as phenols or cyanide compounds.

Dr Ros Gleadow told a recent ABC Catalyst program "Leaves of plants grown at elevated carbon dioxide have a lot less protein. Wheat, barley, rice, all of those in probably only 50 to 60 years time will have 15 to 20% less protein in them than they do now." she said, "In about 50 years time or even 100 years time eucalyptus leaves will have trouble supporting arboreal herbivores like koalas because the phenolic concentration will be too high and the protein level too low."

Bad news for the Koala, one of Australia's iconic creatures, facing extinction from climate change.

Cassava is one of the world's staple food crops because of the plant's drought tolerance. However increased CO2 will stimulate more cyanogen compounds in the plant. Dr Ros Gleadow told Catalyst "We grew cassava at three different concentrations of carbon dioxide. Today's air, one and a half times the amount of carbon dioxide and twice the carbon dioxide of today. And we found that cyanogen concentration in the leaves increased."

Cyanide poisoning from Cassava produces a serious paralytic disease known as Konza, which was first diagnosed in 1981 in Mozambique. Simple methods have been devised to treat the cassava root to allow enzymes to eliminate some of the cyanide as hydrogen cyanide gas, making the tuber relatively safe to eat after processing.

Dr Ros Gleadow outlined that in high carbon dioxide environment the yield from the tuber is also reduced, "The plants actually made less tubers when we grew them at elevated carbon dioxide." she said, "It is all very highly balanced in plants, the ratio of the proteins and the toxins. When you grow plants at elevated carbon dioxide the plants are more efficient so they can grow really well. And at the same time allocate more of their resources to defence."

While carbon dioxide is increasing, there will also be effects from changes in rainfall and water, changes in temperature, which will effect crops. Corn, soybeans and cotton are the largest three crops by production value in the US which will be affected by extreme heat. Above a certain threhold - 29 degrees - yields drop off rapidly and the effects have been described as 'damaging large' by a report by Agricultural Economists published in August in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

We appear to be in for a period of declining crop yield as well as nutritional yield due to climate change which will challenge feeding the world's still growing population.

Background
New Scientist, May 16, 2007 - Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
Stanford University Media Release, Dec 5, 2002 - Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals
Sources
University of California at Davis Media Release, May 13, 2010 - Rising CO2 levels threaten crops and food quality
Catalyst science program, ABC Television, May 6, 2010 - Toxic Crops
Climate IMC, Nov 22, 2009 - USA: Climate Change likely to severely damage U.S. crop yields

- - - - -

WHO WE ARE: Foodforethought is an information service that encourages dialogue and exploration of innovative trends in the global food system. The service is managed by James Kuhns of MetroAg Alliance for Urban Agriculture in collaboration with Wayne Roberts of the Toronto Food Policy Council. To subscribe, please contact editor@foodforethought.net.

New crop of B.C. farmers needed

New crop of B.C. farmers needed