babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Bruce County still fighting for 50-acre farms

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Bruce County still fighting for 50-acre farms
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 21 January 2008 04:43 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
50 or 100 Acre Sized Farms

"Bruce County isn't giving up on plans to entrench 50-acre farm lots in its official plan.

Councillors voted Thursday to hire a consultant to prepare a study they hope to use to convince the province of the benefits of farms smaller than the 100 acres currently mandated by the provincial government.

"We have to prove to the province of Ontario that the plan would not contravene the provincial policy statements. The consultant will be looking at ways to support council's position," county chief administrative officer Wayne Jamieson said."

I hope Bruce County finial wins this fight. 50 acre farmers would allow younger farmers to start a career producing food without being in a larger amount of debt to the banks.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Big Nickel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6513

posted 04 February 2008 08:37 AM      Profile for Big Nickel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can anyone tell me why there would be a minimum size requirement at all? If you own some land and produce food on it for sale, why can't that count as a farm?
From: Sudbury | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
rural - Francesca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14858

posted 04 February 2008 09:47 AM      Profile for rural - Francesca   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ahhhhh

this is a 'development' prevention policy.

You start cutting up farms and a farm goes from being a farm to a subdivision in quick order.


From: the backyard | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 04 February 2008 12:54 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Long and involved story, but what is left is my great uncle's 100 acres (not far away). He's pushing 95 and has a successful "mixed farm" not far north of Barrie. He's been pushed and jostled by everyone in the world, and kept his life. After all Harve raised 6 kids and had a comfortable life.

Harve is an old man and the property his family has held since the mid 1800s will be available. My cousins are great people, but I have no thought that a working class family will take a wonderful trac and "donate" it for historical purposes.

"Progress" can easily destroy.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 03 April 2008 03:15 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Farmers Seek Defenses Against the Giants of Agribusiness

Around the world, farm income is plummeting, pushing farmers off the land and into destitution. At the very same time, soaring food prices are putting tens of millions onto starvation diets.

Welcome to the bizarre world of capitalist agriculture, where the drive to boost profits of giant transnational corporations is imperiling the production of our means of survival.
….

The last two decades of cutbacks, layoffs, and concession contracts, which wage workers know as "neo-liberalism," hit farmers with extra severity. In that time, 25% of Canada's farms disappeared.
….

The average farm in Canada represented an investment of $1.3 million in 2006 — more per worker than in any other industry. Yet the average farmer's "net market income" from this massive investment was only $13,000. And more than two-thirds must be set aside to provide for depreciation of buildings and equipment.

The NFU calculates that Ontario farmers` real return on their investment dropped to zero in 1991, and has declined since to "negative $15,000 per farm" in 2006.

Meanwhile, farm debt has more than doubled over the last two decades. With income levels so low, such debts can usually be repaid only be selling the farm.

Farmers try to compensate by taking off-farm jobs. Small and mid-sized Ontario farms get 90% of their income that way. Even farms with the highest sales get more than a quarter of their total revenue from off-farm jobs.

Given the disastrous economic conditions, few young people are stepping forward to replace Canada's aging farm work force. In twenty years, the number of farmers under 35 years old is down 62%.

Corporate profiteering

The sickness in Canada's farms is rooted in the way the proceeds of agriculture are divided between farmers and workers, on the one hand, and capitalist corporations on the other.

In Canada's hog industry, between 1988 and 2002, and despite inflation, farm-gate prices (including inflation) fell 5% from 1988 to 2007. Packinghouse workers' wages rose a bit, but much less than inflation. Yet the price of pork to consumers went up 39%.
In 2005, the NFU noted that wheat farmers were getting five cents from each loaf of bread, the same amount as thirty years earlier. The income of supermarket workers has been under sharp attack. But the share of each loaf that goes to corporate millers, bakers, and grocers rose from 38 cents to $1.35.

In 2004, which the NFU says was the second-worst year for farming in history, the corporations living off the farmers had their most profitable year ever. The corporations are appropriating every penny of the profits of farming — indeed, more than 100%, since farmers are unable to cover their costs from farm-product sales.
….

Farmers have long sought to achieve market power in the same way as workers — by joining together in order to impose a higher price for their product.

Workers do this through unions, which establish "market power" by bargaining collectively to set wage levels.

Farmers have sought to establish agencies — under their own or government management — that exercise control over the marketing of farm produce. The NFU points to the merits of existing plans of this type, such as the Canadian Wheat Board or Ontario's egg and milk marketing boards.

In recent years, such "supply management" plans have come under government attack, and some have been shut down. New marketing agreements of this type are banned by the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA clears the decks for agribusinesses to combine worldwide in giant transnational monopolies, while preventing the world's atomized and oppressed farmers from uniting in self-defense.

Imagine a law banning collective bargaining by unions, and you'll have some idea of the effect NAFTA has on farmers.
….

The Farmers Union proposes an array of measures to help working farmers resist corporate profiteering. Among them:

• Encourage supply management and take initiatives to implement it internationally.
• Establish price supports to guarantee that farmers receive their cost of production.
• Break the monopoly of corporate suppliers of seed, fertilizer, and other farm inputs by funding creation of farmer-owned co-ops.
• Ban corporate farming as well as corporate contracts that dictate where farmers buy inputs and sell their product.
• Provide young people who want to farm with access to the land through community land trusts and land banks; ease the mountain of debt that now prevents sons and daughters from taking over the family farm.

None of this needs to increase the cost of food to consumers, the NFU points out. Farmers receive so little of the food dollar that the cost of increasing their share can be absorbed by corporate processors and retailers without price increases.
….

The rise of "food tourism" reflects concerns felt by a growing number of consumers about the impact of corporate methods on food supply:

• Locally grown food is prized by many consumers as fresher, tastier, and healthier; many seek direct contact with the farmer.
• Air-freighting food around the world when it can be grown locally generates damaging and unnecessary carbon emissions that contribute to global warming.
• Agribusiness imposes industrial farming methods that are unhealthy and unsustainable.
• Environmental degradation and the diversion of food to fuel are placing the security of world food supplies in jeopardy, as has been eloquently explained by Fidel Castro and other leaders of the Global South.
….

The local-food effort is helping to provide farmers with an influential potential ally — the ecological movement. Farmers deserve determined support from the labour movement as well. Working people have a lot to gain from the availability of local-food at grocery stores and from ecologically sound and sustainable agriculture.

It is also a question of solidarity. Working people who are employed need to stand together with farmers, fishers, truckers, and other independent producers who are exploited by the same corporations and face the same enemy.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 06 April 2008 07:47 AM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Although these initiatives are well-intentioned, some of these suggestions are not at all practical and look for easy solutions.

The family farm has been on the way out for many years now, and international competition and specialization is a fact of life for most workers.

I think it would be a better approach to try to positively promote labour and environmental standards than to go back to protectionism. It would certainly be easier, and a better sell to the general public, who have voted with their dollars up to this point.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 06 April 2008 09:14 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
By protectionism I assume you mean initiatives like the 100-mile diet.

You're telling us that globalization and highly-industrialized, fossil-fuel-intensive methods of food production are inevitable, so we should just lie back and think of England (or in this case China).

The current food crisis that is sweeping the globe is the direct result of those kinds of destructive and inhumane policies, and we must act now to stop them, or face unimaginable consequences.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 06 April 2008 02:41 PM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Certainly some of these things are good ideas, but a 100 mile diet sounds to me like a fad. Will it be around in ten years ?

Jeez, I would hate to think that I'm not allowed to drink coffee any more.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 06 April 2008 02:44 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, jeez, it's gonna be real tough in ten years when when you can't go to the supermarket and buy groceries from halfway around the world because oil costs $300 a barrel and half the food producers in the third world have died off from climate change and famine.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 06 April 2008 03:21 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Certainly some of these things are good ideas, but a 100 mile diet sounds to me like a fad. Will it be around in ten years ?

Jeez, I would hate to think that I'm not allowed to drink coffee any more.


It's got nothing to do with what one is 'allowed' to do. It has more to do with what is feasible for one to do in terms of costs etc and looking to the future feasibility of it. I don't doubt that you would be allowed to buy coffee in tens years, whether it will be as relatively cheap as it is now is another question.

The 100 mile diet isn't a fad, because it's about a lot more then just 'eating.'


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 06 April 2008 03:33 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Yeah, jeez, it's gonna be real tough in ten years when when you can't go to the supermarket and buy groceries from halfway around the world because oil costs $300 a barrel and half the food producers in the third world have died off from climate change and famine.


Wise people will start preparing themselves, you should be learning skills that will make your life easier when the civilizations begin to collapse.

Getting back to our pioneer roots will be beneficial to people living in the cities.

I have no doubts that I can survive however I feel sorry for people in the cities.

I have been preparing for the upcoming crisis.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca