Google+

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Finally! CFC Bans Ceftiofur Injections in Eggs & Chicks

The use of the powerful antibiotic ceftiofur in chicks and eggs has finally been banned by Chicken Farmers of Canada ("CFC").  CFC's new rule takes effect on May 15th 2014.

CFC's private glacier must have melted a little recently.   CFC, long ago frozen in administrative suspended animation, has finally decided to act for the good of Canadians.  Previously, it seemed as if CFC would rather focus their efforts on themselves and their millionaire, greedy chicken farmer stakeholders.

My heartfelt congratulations to CFC for joining the rest of us who live in the real world, rather than CFC's delusional and self-serving assumptions.

Chicken farmers have a long history, over 60 years, of using drugs, chemical, and yes, even poisonous and cancer-causing arsenic in the chicken feed and water supply for their factory farmed foul chickens,  This crazy scheme of the Chicken Mafia helps them to maximize their profits and reduce their business risk; regardless of the possible impact on people who would eventually eat their chicken as food.  Sounds crazy, but it's true.

For ceftiofur, factory chicken farmers ordered the hatcheries to have robots inject ceftiofur into millions of hatching eggs so that the chickens would be tainted before they were born.  In other cases, the newly hatched chicks were sexed, then injected with their vile antibiotic fluid so as to maximize their profits and minimize their business risks.

I previously reported on, complained, and warned about these issues as early as March 2, 2013 which is just 3 days after starting this Blog (see Eating Farm Gate Chicken? ).  This Blog's all time winning Blog post for reader activity is Choose: Frankenstein Chicken, or Naturally Raised Chicken? from April 2, 2013.  Also see here, here, here, here, here, and here.  Do you think any of that commentary helped throw CFC over the cliff to abandon their foolish scheme?

Naw, I doubt it.

Unfortunately, all of these antibiotics, drugs, and chemicals in the chicken feed have created superbugs on retail chicken sold in grocery stores.

In 2010, Public Health Canada reported an extremely strong linkage (ie. the correlation describes 90% of all variation between ceftiofur-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg isolated from retail raw chicken and incidence of ceftiofur-resistant Salmonella serovar Heidelberg infections in humans across Canada.

Most people think of hospitals when they think of exposure to superbugs (ie. nosocomial infections ); some that cause life-long infections, or death.  However, it is likely the raw chicken in the grocery store that is the greater threat, not hospitals.

The majority of households do not have repeated visits to the hospitals; most people are generally healthy.  However, virtually every family makes a weekly trip to the grocery store.  The higher frequency of exposure via the grocery store may make this the #1 risk to your family from superbugs.

You may be a vegetarian, and never go near meat.  Don't think that that will protect you from a superbug infection.

Most people eat meat, and after they touch packages of raw chicken, they touch just about everything else in the grocery store that you touch too; like the handles on the freezer cases in the grocery stores.  Now that you also touched those same surfaces, that superbug slime from the chicken wrapper is all over your hands too.  You'd better be careful what you touch next

Oops!  You touched your lettuce in your cart when you re-adjusted its position so it wouldn't get squished by your other groceries.  The lettuce is now contaminated with chicken superbug ooze, and those superbugs won't fully wash off even if rinsed under running water at home.  Your salad now has an extra, secret ingredient that you did not intend to add.  Say thank-you to the Canadian factory farmed foul (chicken).

This story was initially broke by Margaret Munro's story in The StarPhoenix and/or O.Canada.com  (more comprehensive version).  Click the link and read the excellent history that puts the "smoking gun" in the hands of the CFC, while they stand over the dead bodies of their alleged victims, the Canadian public).  These stories seems to have been based on a related story in the Ottawa Citizen.

Ceftiofur antibiotic use causes the corresponding growth of superbugs
on chicken, and in human infections.  Quebec banned the use of
ceftiofur in chickens, and the superbug problem disappeared; first on the
chicken, then in humans, so Quebec allowed ceftiofur to start being used again.
The superbugs soon came back again, so Quebec banned ceftiofur  again.
Meanwhile in Ontario (also a superbug hotspot), neither the Ontario
government nor CFO did anything, as usual.  Above graph is from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871348/
The Canadian Veterinary Journal sheds some additional light on the subject here, here, and  here.  Here is the graph showing the superbug hotspot data from Quebec and Ontario.

Searching CFC's website for "ceftiofur" so as to confirm this news flash yields nothing.  Searching for "antibiotic" gives CFC's standard propaganda justifying their fossilization and suspended animation of their self-serving and wrong headed policy on the permitted and recommended use of antibiotics to maximize chicken farmer profits; in spite of the growing evidence of their wrong-headed policies.
After May 15th, it is hoped that CFC and all other SM Mafia personnel will actually audit their henchmen to ensure their compliance with the new rules.  The greatest risk of all is some renegade chicken farmers who are greedy enough to continue buying their drug of choice on the black market, or personally importing it, and feeding it to their flocks; callously continuing the risk for Canadian consumers.

In the interim, here are SFPFC's recommendations to protect yourself from chicken superbugs in the grocery store and when you bring them home to your unsuspecting, innocent family members.  Why did CFC take this action now?

Was it the end consumer's demands for change?  Was it CFC's deep empathy and caring for the needs and priorities of these potential victims of CFC's crazy plans?

Don't make me laugh!

CFC is a narcissistic organization, like the rest of the Chicken Mafia (see Individual and Organizational Narcissism ).

Narcissistic organizations tend not to identify and correct their previous errors.

I can only assume that behind the scenes, the Chief Vets of the Provinces and Federal Government, and/or Health Canada and Public Health Canada twisted CFC's arm, by saying "Take appropriate action to this threat to public health, or else!".

Maybe someday, we will know for sure.

Will CFC give Canadians their assurance that they will adequately police their members and ensure Mafia-style compliance with the Chicken Mafia Don's orders against the use of banned antibiotics?

If CFC is unwilling or unable to give us that assurance of comprehensive auditing to ensure compliance, then their banning of ceftiofur is a mere smokescreen to distract and mislead Canadians; true to their narcissistic character.

Don't hold your breath.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

CFO's Motion to Dismiss Small Flocker's Appeal

Small Flockers want the abuse and oppression against us to stop.  CFO thinks everything is perfect just the way it is.  That's why CFO is fighting to stop our appeal to Ontario's Ministry of Agriculture Tribunal.

Here is a copy of CFO's Motion to Dismiss, attempting to blow our appeal out of the water, preventing the public hearing of these important issues.

Guess why CFO wants to avoid the OMAF Tribunal, and keep everything Top Secret?

Is CFO embarrassedby their actions and inactions against Small Flockers?

To survive CFO's attack through this Motion to Dismiss, I will need lots of help.

We will need donations to pay for the cost of printing and couriering our answer to CFO's Motion.

We need letters of support from the general public, farmers, and all professionals to tell the Tribunal why the issues raised by Small Flockers are important to you and the rest of Canada, and that justice can only be done by hearing of Small Flocker's appeal by the Tribunal.

The ball is in your court.

I will proceed ahead to the Motion Hearing, even if I am the only one there on our side.

Whether this plea for relief of the injustice and oppression, and violation of Small Flockers rights goes any further after that, will in part depend on what you and all others do in the next few weeks to help our cause.

Now is the time to act!

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Rising Army of Small Flockers

Data squeezed out of the super secret CFO via CFO's Motion
to Dismiss hearing at OMAF Tribunal

Remember Edward Snowden and his release of Top Secret NSA info?

Today I feel like I've done the same to Chicken Farmers of Ontario.

At right is Top Secret info divulged by CFO in their Motion filed with OMAF's Tribunal.

I've previously worked with multi-nationals who treated everything as Top Secret so as to protect their technologies and competitive advantage.

To me, it seems CFO takes "Top Secret for Everything" way beyond even those corporation's level of arrogance, xenophobia, and paranoia.

I'm not sure why CFO released this info, but they did, so here it is for all the world to see.

It appears that Ontario's Small Flockers has grown way past our last reported strength of 13,000 quota-exempt chicken farmers.

The amalgamation and concentration of ownership of quota
is reducing the number of quota-bearing chicken farmers
There are now 15,129 Small Flockers in Ontario, increasing at an average rate of 11.6% per year for the last 4 years.

How does that compare to CFO's millionaire quota-based chicken farmers?  The number of members in CFO's exclusive club have been dropping since 2002.

I wonder why?

Is this resistance of Small Flockers legitimate complaints jealousy, fear, or spite by CFO and its dwindling members?

P.S.   Here is a copy of CFO's Motion to Dismiss, attempting to blow our appeal out of the water, preventing the public hearing of these important issues.

Guess why CFO wants to avoid the OMAF Tribunal, and keep everything Top Secret?


Monday, April 7, 2014

Who's the Boss?

The Chicken Mafia thinks they're running the show, the Kings of Canadian Chicken.  Whatever happened to "The Customer is King"?

In health care, a public service paid for by our tax dollars, virtually every Doctor, Nurse, PSW, and Administrator realize that the patients must be provided timely, accurate medical information so that they can make an informed medical decision.  Whether the health care provider agrees with the patient's decision, or the patient followed or ignored their expert medical advice, once the patient has made the decision, those health care providers are responsible to enable and facilitate that patient's decision, whether they agree or not.

The legislation and regulations of Supply Management created a monopoly for everyone in the Supply Management system.  Consumers now have the "privilege" to pay up to 300% for chicken so as to support this artificial monopoly.  Shouldn't that give the consumers some rights beyond "take it or leave it"?

I posted previously on this Blog about the 7 questions for which I seek answers by the Ministry of Agriculture's Appeal Tribunal (see "Tribunal Time" ).  Since then, the list has expanded to 8 questions. 

Today, let's take a detailed look at Question #3:
3.    Under Section 7.(2).(a) of Farm Products Agency Act and Section 12.(2) of Farm Products Marketing Act, the majority of producers for an agricultural commodity must agree for that commodity to come under Supply Management.  The Appellant alleges that the 13,000 Small Flockers in Ontario were never consulted on this question.  In spite of this, both the Federal and Ontario governments have approved the 1,400 member minority to enter Supply Management, and approved the minority to pass onerous regulations that favour the minority and oppress the majority.  In a free and democratic country, is there sufficient constitutional authority for a 1,400 member minority to be given unilateral authority to rule and control both the 1,400 minority and the 13,000 majority, thereby creating a Chicken Apartheid?
The governments of Canada have their powers limited to "peace, order, and good government" according to Section 91 of the Canadian Constitution.

Canada is a free and democratic country, as the Supreme Court of Canada likes to keep reminding us.  That means that government must work for the greater good of all (the majority, or as close to "all" as we can get), while protecting the rights of the minorities.

So how did their lobbyists slip this by everybody so as to construct a Chicken Apartheid where 1,400 chicken farmers rule the roost, and decide on what's best for them, at the expense of the other 13.5 Million people in Ontario?

Small Flockers weren't consulted on this choice of Supply Management for Ontario chicken.  Why were the  rights of the 13,000 majority of chicken farmers violated, contrary to the protections and safeguards in the Acts?

Like any good trick by a magician, you can watch him do the trick time and again, but may never figure out how he did it.

Fortunately, it's easy to figure out that the end result is just plain wrong.  It's like finding out that the magician includes a pick pocketing demonstration in his stage magical act.  The pick pocketing magician works the whole crowd, amassing a stolen fortune in watches, rings, and wallets.

Unfortunately, this particular magician refuses to return anything to their rightful owners.  At what point does the crowd stop applauding the slight of hand, and start demanding to get their property back?

You can only let that kleptocracy (ie. a bureaucracy that steals) go on for so long before it's no longer funny.

Perhaps a similar moment is soon to arrive in Canada for the Chicken Mafia.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Tribunal Time

It's off to the Tribunal we go!

Yesterday, I received the Tribunal's acknowledgement of receipt of our Notice of Appeal from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Appeal Tribunal. I agreed to all of their proposed dates, but somehow, the Tribunal scheduled us to different dates.  The Motion Hearing is scheduled at Tribunal's offices at 1 Stone Road West, Guelph, Ontario Canada (45 minutes from Toronto ON Canada), beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday May 14, 2014.

This motion is likely a preliminary ploy by Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") to stop the appeal before it gets started.

As CFO sees it, I have no rights whatsoever, and they are the mighty and powerful CFO, and don't appreciate me questioning their actions and authority.

If you don't mark this date on your calendar and show up at the appointed time, I will likely be there all by myself, staring into the hungry, snarling, foaming mouths of CFO's lawyers; from 1 to 6 Toronto lawyers who will attempt to rip me apart and feed me to their young; all while being paid $500 per hour for each of these legal wolf-mercenaries.

Bring popcorn and your smart phone for live video opportunities.  This will likely be interesting.

This hearing, and if we ever get to the Tribunal, could cost up to $3,000 per hour that CFO has to pay their lawyers.  Of course, CFO will fund the protection of their monopoly by raising CFO chicken levies that are charged to quota-based chicken farmers.  Ontario's factory chicken farmers who pay those levies will, in turn, be reimbursed by raising the farm gate chicken prices that the farmers enjoy.  Chicken processors will be forced to pay these higher farm gate chicken prices, so the retail price of chicken will eventually be raised accordingly.

So again, the consumer gets shafted by trying to seek an end to the previous and ongoing shafting of consumers.

My apologies to all Canadians for increasing your pain through higher chicken prices in the short term.  Hopefully, there is a rainbow and pot of gold that will eventually be found through this appeal process.

What will we be discussing at this motion hearing?  CFO likely feels I have no right to appeal, the Tribunal has no authority to hear my complaints, and I have been scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, trivial, my appeal has no merit, it's an abuse of the judicial process, moot, bad faith, have an improper purpose, or discloses no reasonable cause of action, and therefore I lose any right to appeal.

As to the Tribunal appeal itself, there is a short and long version available.  Take your pick:

The Long Version:  The Gory Details of my Appeal

Notice of Appeal   272 pages, Adobe Acrobat pdf, 5.63 MB


The Short Version:   7 Questions


Suggested Questions for the OMAF Tribunal to Answer

Glenn Black
vs.
Chicken Farmers of Ontario (“CFO”) &
Ontario’s Farm Products Marketing Commission (“OFPMC”)
  1. Currently, small flock (ie. non-quota) chicken farmers are subject to government authority and powers that have been delegated to, or vested in Chicken Farmers of Ontario (“CFO”). Since these delegated and vested powers imposed on Small Flockers originated from the governments of a free and democratic country, does the Appellant and other Small Flockers have the legal right to membership in CFO, to attend CFO meetings, to receive CFO information, to run for a CFO elected office, and vote in CFO elections so as to have democratic representation at the CFO Board?

  2. If the answer to Q #1 is no, then should Small Flockers be exempt from the By-laws, rules, policies, procedures, powers, authority, rulings, invasion of privacy, and threat of enforcement currently planned and practiced by CFO?

  3. Are there other responsibilities, duties, and constraints owed by the Defendants (ie. both CFO and OFPMC) for the benefit of the Appellant or others, that irrevocably flow with the government powers that are delegated and vested in the Defendants, above and beyond those expressly enumerated in the Farm Products Marketing Act and Regulations?

  4. Under Section 1.01 of the Federal-Provincial Agreement-Chicken 2001, all members of the chicken Supply Management system agreed “to work in the balanced interest of producers, industry stakeholders and consumers”. Have the Defendants breached these duties under this agreement? If yes, does the Appellant, Small Flockers, the consumer, and/or the general public have vested third party rights, either under this agreement or otherwise, that they can use to seek legal redress from the Defendants?

  5. Do the Defendants have a duty to be open, transparent, accountable, prudent, and reasonable; and to consider, accommodate, and be responsive to the rights, needs, expectations, complaints, and suggestions from:   (a) the Defendant’s respective stakeholders?   (b) The Appellant?   (c) Small Flockers?   (d) the consumer? and (e) the general public?

  6. Is there sufficient objective, unbiased evidence to conclude that the Defendants have fully, faithfully, consistently, effectively, and efficiently:   (a) developed plans;   (b) avoided risks;   (c) implemented their express and implied duties in a timely and good faith manner for the greater good of the consumer, the general public and the Defendant’s respective stakeholders;   (d) periodically assessed their own performance, promptly took corrective action as needed, and continuously improved their performance?

  7. If the answer to Q #6 is no, what duties do the Defendants have to assess their past performance, identify the cause of their inadequate past performance, determine the optimum solutions, take immediate corrective actions, verify and validate that their remedial actions are fully implemented and effective, and ensure their prior poor conduct (as well as all similar potentials) are avoided forevermore?

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Supply Management Fog

History can teach us why and how things came to be.  Bill C-176, as discussed previously (see Blog Posting Lesson #1: #ChickenMafia History Lesson ) led to the creation of Canada's Supply Management system of today.

An Internet search led me to a submission made to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture re: Bill C-176 - 2 Feb 1971 by the United Grain Growers (“UGG”).  UGG had subsequently donated its historic archives to the University of Saskatchewan Library, Department of Agricultural Economics, who cataloged and listed the documents on the Internet for schmucks like me to find.   If you are a proud schmuck, here is the link:

Box 91, Folder 17, University of Saskatchewan Library, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ref. # KF1718.W55 1971, b24167496, Catalogue # 902001621757 http://www.umanitoba.ca/libraries/archives/collections/complete_holdings/ead/html/ugg98.shtml
I ordered the document as an Inter-library loan, and 2 weeks later and $10.00 lighter, I have it in my sweaty hands.  Here is UGG's document submitted to the Federal Government in 1971, clearly stating their opposition to Supply Management.  Unfortunately, just about all of their warnings became true over the last 43 years.

Read these 12 pages to better understand why Supply Management is a bad idea, such as:
  • Individual rights
  • efficiency and flexibility from secondary and derivative industries
  • agriculture efficiency
  • geographic proximity between production and use
  • mutually agreed vs. unilateral edicts
  • one size doesn't fit all, there are different needs and issues on a Canada-wide basis
  • protections for the public
  • personal freedoms
  • SM is a powerful solution without a clear problem to solve
  • SM given excessive powers without adequate direction, constraints, supervision, accountability, or oversight
  • SM will have a negative impact on the in-farm and local economy.
  • loss of export sales of commodities
  • SM's market interference
Have we grown up enough in the last 43 years to be able to admit that UGG was right, and the lobbyists for the millionaire farmers were wrong?

If we're not yet ready to admit the obvious truth, when will we be ready?

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Local Agriculture wins over Big Food



The United Nations Environment Programme says small farmers are the #1 method for fighting poverty.  Based on this, can the governments of Canada and Ontario, and the Chicken Mafia be more respectful and accommodating towards small flocker’s rights, and the benefits they can produce?

Julie Stauffer did an article on this UN report in the Jan-Feb 2014 issue of Small Farm Canada.  The focus of this UN report, Smallholders, Food Security and the Environment strongly recommends government support of small agriculture.

The UN report provides the statistical proof that a 1% increase in agricultural sector GDP is 5 times more effective at reducing poverty than that same GDP increase in any other sector of the nation’s economy.
The UN economists say the main reason that local agriculture works so well is because it reduces financial leakage.  Local farmers tend to buy local supplies, feed local people, use local services, and hire local people.  The money stays in the community, and goes round and round inside that community.  This local economy focus has been proven effective time and again, one of the most researched successes being the Worgl Experiment in 1922-23 with its use of local currency to further enhance the effect.

In contrast to local agriculture, big, monopolistic agriculture such as the Supply Management Mafia of today crushes the local people into economic slavery, using food as a weapon against the people.  The local people toil and scrape to earn enough to buy the food off the truck that was imported from far away.  Surrendering their hard earned money gets them enough food to live another day, enabling the repeating of this food slavery process again and again.  To maximize the food barons’ monopolistic profits, local expenditures are minimized.  That means the only local jobs are to get the food off the truck, protect it, and sell it; all for the benefit of the food barons.  The local poor stand helplessly and watch as their hard earned money leaves their community.  Their locally produced wealth is captured again and again, taken away as the delicious profits for far away food barons.

The advantages of local agriculture apply equally well to local or domestic manufacturing of cars, big screen TV’s, computers, customer service call centres, and so on.  Local food is orders of magnitude more important, as we must have food every day, while the loss of affordability for big screen TV’s is an inconvenience at worst.  The farther away the goods and services come from, the greater the negative effect on the local economy.  When you buy a cheap big screen TV that was made in China, remember that there are many costs and risks to your local, provincial, and national economy that are not included on the price tag for that cheap TV.  However, these non-agriculture issues will have to be someone else’s crusade on a different Blog.  Here, we focus on small flockers and local agriculture.

While the UN report is mainly focused on the third world and doesn’t specifically mention Canada, there are many neighbourhoods, regions and communities within Canada that live in third world poverty conditions.  If the report’s recommendations are valid for Africa, Asia, Central America, and elsewhere, why won’t their recommendations also work for Canada’s poorest regions, or its poorest people?

I have previously alerted you that 28.8% of Nunavut’s families in Canada’s far North are stuck with food prices higher than what they can afford (see Blog Posting The Chicken Mafia Exposed ).  Many First Nation reserves along the Southern border of Canada have between 33% to over 50% of their families that can’t afford the food they need to feed their families.  Ontario, as a have-not Province in Canada, is 11% worse off than the Canadian average of 7.6% food insecurity.

Council of Canadian Academies' report Aboriginal Food Security in Northern Canada:   An Assessment of the State of Knowledge finds that people in Nunavut have the highest food insecurity rate
small girl holding a sign at a protest in Nunavut about unaffordable food and food insecurity in June 2002
"I need milk", written in both English and Inuktitut,
during a June 2012 food affordability protest,
from CBC News report on Nunavut food insecurity. 
Obviously, it isn't just milk that is the problem.  She, and
thousands of others could benefit from affordable
dietary protein and fat, such as small flock poultry.
of 68%, higher than any other indigenous population in a developed country.  They also report that 35% of Inuit households in Nunavut do not have enough to eat, 76% of Inuit preschoolers skip meals, and 60% of children have gone a day without eating.

 The hardest hit are the pre-schoolers and their growing bodies.  For Inuit pre-schoolers:
  • 90% have gone hungry;
  • 76% had no food available for 1 or more meal times;
  • 70% don't know when they will get their next meal;
  • 70% live in food insecure households;
  • 60% have gone a full day without eating;
  • 31% are moderately food insecure;
  • 25% are severely food insecure.
While Nunavut is the current extreme that has now been better documented for all to see, there are many other areas of Canada that are in a significant crisis, perhaps as bad or worse than Nunavut.  To know for sure, all we have to do is go out there, then look, listen, and report.

Most Canadian families are forced to “dumb down” their grocery purchases, leaving the more nutritious foods on the grocery store shelves.  They feel forced to make the choice for less nutritious foods, in favour of paying the electric bill, the gas bill, and their mortgage.

So I ask Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; and MP Leona Aglukkak, Minister of the Environment, Minister for the Arctic Council, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, and former Minister of Health; and Chicken Farmers of Canada the following questions:
  1. Since importation of foods to remote communities build dependencies, hurts self-sufficiency, hurts local economies, and make nutritious food even more unaffordable, do you support the principle of helping ensure locally produced, nutritious, safe, and affordable food; however and where ever feasible?
  2. Whereas dietary protein and fat are essential constituents of a healthy diet, and whereas poultry are the most efficient and affordable source of locally produced protein and fat that is feasible for all regions of Canada, do you support the development and encouragement of local poultry production for all communities and regions of Canada?
  3. Whereas the UN report, Smallholders, Food Security and the Environment strongly recommends government support of small agriculture, do you support the development and encouragement of small flock poultry farms as a solution for all regions of Canada, especially remote areas?
  4. What specific actions have you personally taken, and your organization taken to support or advance local food and food security in Canada?
Remember, these are the people who continue to administer the Supply Management system for chicken that charges 300% more for chicken in Canada than the world price charged everywhere other than Canada. 

Is there nothing more than callous disregard for the people of Canada when the big wig Board members of CFO (Chicken Farmers of Ontario) meet around their fancy solid oak board table?  It is human nature for these millionaires to take care of themselves first and foremost; I get that.  However, even in the Dark Ages, the King would throw the odd hunk of meat to the floor for the dogs, or sweep the crumbs from the table so that the mice might live another day.  I have been assured that Caesar did the same in Imperial Rome, and Pharaoh did the same for his Israelite slaves.

Where is the Provincial and Federal Cabinet on these issues?  The Ministers of Agriculture are expected to take care of their portfolio, and bring pressing issues before the rest of the Cabinet.  If those Ministers of Agriculture fail to speak, the rest of the Cabinet will incorrectly assume that all is well.  In Ontario’s case, the Premier and the Ag. Minister are one in the same, Kathleen Wynne.  I assume it would be difficult for Ontario’s Ag Minister not to have the ear and attention of the Premier.

Well, for anybody who is reading, let me tell you:   ALL IS NOT WELL!   Pass the word.


Wednesday, March 19, 2014

We're Rich, We're Rich ! ! !

Receiving a letter yesterday from Egg Farmers of Ontario ("EFO") was ominous.  I thought, what now?  After opening the EFO letter, I laughed, then shouted out, "I'm rich!"

EFO has been taking advantage of the SR&ED tax break worth $99,075.90 (Scientific Research & Experimental Development) through PIC (Poultry Industry Council for Research & Education).

As a small flock egg producer, we had some excess eggs that we transported to the nearest egg grading station we could find, OK Egg Farm in Elmira ON, 604 km 1-way 


View Larger Map

The folks at OK Egg Farm were very patient with me.  As a small flock egg producer, I had no clue how their quota-based egg grading systems worked.  We eventually got our eggs transferred to their tray systems and awaited our miniscule cheque.

I can't remember the exact amount, but it was around $1.75 per dozen for 80 dozen, for a gross income of about $140.00 less $0.50/km x 1,208 km for a delivery cost $604.00 for a net loss of $464.00 as a penalty for not selling all our eggs.  Based on this 1-time "dumping" of excess eggs, we were included in EFO's SR&ED lottery.  Our share of this SR&ED pot of gold was $0.03 grand total.  We get to claim this $0.03 on our income tax by filling out many CRA forms and possibly hiring an accountant.

By the way, EFO spent $0.63 in postage sending me notice of this $0.03 benefit.  The funniest part of all.

Rather than taking our excess eggs for a 604 km drive, it would be better to use our eggs for target practice on the side of the chicken coop, rather than going to the nearest grading station.  The challenge of small flock egg producers located in remote areas.