U.S. farmers set for huge government payouts despite bumper harvest!

[hobbyfrmr]

Tweety,

The only reference to a cost of production per bushel I have ever seen published was that Schultz guy in Alberta. $2.50/bushel. It was in a globe and Mail article

[farmaholic]

Stonepicker, I understand your sentiment, but Mulcair as a Liberal would be better than a New Democrat. Just my opinion.

[tweety]

Hobby, then at 5 or 6 bucks sold - more then twice the cost of production, that's a very good return.

[hobbyfrmr]

I think that is a reasonable rate of return yes. Naturally, More is better.
I'm a farmer so, no matter how high the grain price, it's never enough. I can't spend it fast enough.

[westernvicki]

The cheap food policy exists all over the world. The reality is we live in Canada will never have the same level of income support as USA or Europe or for that matter any other country that supports agricultural production for various reasons from food security to economic policy so the best we can hope for is efficiencies that enable us to be competitive.

And in even this we are failing as evidenced by the gaps between global grain prices and what we receive in western Canada for out commodities. Indeed in most cases we pay more for goods and services to operate our business' than that of our competitors as well.

Just back from China and they pay less for gas for their cars than we do in Canada... go figure.

Somewhere in the spreads we need to find profit, and indeed someone in Ottawa and Regina should be doing the math as indeed the Canadian farm economy is trying to thrive in some very incredible gaps, which are incredibly large.

Our role as farmers is to find opportunity, the role of government is to provide a reasonable playing field in which to thrive.

[SASKFARMER3]

Well said western vic

[grassfarmer]

Hey SF3 you do know that supply managed businesses aren't subsidized don't you?
The consumer pays the price which is set by the Government to limit excess processor/retailer profiteering and guarantee the farmer a fair return.
In fact because their income comes from the marketplace they are less subsidized than you grain farmers.

[Braveheart]

Grassfarmer, trade negotiators call our supply managed industries "subsidy equivalent".

A subsidy by any other name is still a subsidy.

[farmaholic]

It's kinda coming from the same pocket, but the difference is the "consumer" has a choice, the taxpayer doesn't. But not everyone pays taxes either.

[grassfarmer]

Braveheart, no wonder Canada is such a naive trade negotiator. Why would a producer in this country adopt the terminology used by overseas competitors trying to do us down and gain advantage over us?

Do you view these overseas competitors as your friends while your supply managed fellow Canadian farmers are the enemy?

Strange allegiance.

[Braveheart]

I personally do not view overseas competitors as allies/friends. But make no mistake, the supply managed sector is subsidized, consumer funded albeit.

Nonetheless, I am not currently in supply managed, neither dairy or feather. I don't deny those sectors the right to negotiate their destiny.

To me they are an interesting mix of cornering the market and a subsidized industry.

Just to be clear, we really looked at getting into dairy. Quota was just out of our financial ability.

[Braveheart]

We were also concerned with the future of supply management.

[grassfarmer]

By that token every agricultural product/producer everywhere is subsidized. Why you would call the price a consumer pays for a product a subsidy is beyond me.

[Braveheart]

Legislation limits imports or imposes sky high tariffs, limiting foreign competition. Domestic supply is managed to just meet demand and price to consumer is set by board directed formulae.

By limiting domestic and foreign competition prices are "set" by the regulatory framework. That, is the equivalent of a subsidy.

A subsidy by any other name is a subsidy.

I know the Agri-Left thinks supply management is a wonderful farming example, and it may well be, but there's no denying it's subsidized agriculture.

[mbdog]

Supply managed is good for those in supply management production system, and who own/can afford quota. Sounds like they self-regulate themselves, and set price. Govt supports cause they don't "directly" subsidize the industry. Consumer must pay domestic price.
Neither for or against...my concern would be that those in these protected industries, not just the producer, don't take consumer $/government support for granted in perpetuity. I see/hear escalating price and consolidation of quotas...best situation for everyone? What is a person to think?