brant county report -- final · section vii issues and challenges facing agriculture and agri ‐...

2

The Workforce Planning Board of Grand Erie and the Elgin Middlesex Oxford Workforce Planning and

Development Board are members of Workforce Planning Ontario.

Each board serves as a leader in local labour market planning, conducting annual research on the trends,

opportunities impacting the local labour market. The boards produce and release regular updates,

reports and an annual publication that captures strategic actions to address key labour market priorities.

Local Boards are funded by Employment Ontario

Both boards would like to thank the Sand Plains Transition Fund program for making this research possible.

The material in this report has been prepared for the WPBGE and is drawn from a variety of sources

considered to be reliable. We make no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to its accuracy or

completeness. In providing this material, WPBFGE and EMOWPDB do not assume any responsibility or liability.

BrantCounty:AgricultureandLabourForceAnalysisStudy

Preparedby:Dr.ClaraSiisii‐ResearchAnalyst

2

AcknowledgementsThis study would not be possible without the support of the Workforce Planning Board of Grand Erie and the Elgin Middlesex Oxford Workforce Planning and Development Board. I would like to convey my thanks, appreciation and gratitude to the developers and supporters of this research project: Jill Halyk, Executive Director of the Workforce Planning Board of Grand Erie and Debra Mountenay, Executive Director ‐ the Elgin Middlesex Oxford Workforce Planning and Development Board. I acknowledge and express my appreciation to the Sand Plains Community Development Fund for providing funding for this project. I would like to thank the employees of the Workforce Planning Board of Grand Erie and the Elgin Middlesex Oxford Workforce Planning and Development Board for their support in developing brochures, surveys, media coverage and releases and administering surveys. There are several people that took time to help with surveys and provided data for analysis. My thanks go to Sandra Vos of Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Brant County and Janine Lunn of Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Elgin and Oxford Counties for taking time to help with the surveys and for their advice. I would also like to convey my appreciation to Mike Florio and Vicki Luke of Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) for helping with the data. I would like to convey my appreciation to farmers, businesses and institutions who took time to participate in the surveys.

3

TableofContentsSection I Introduction 1.0 Background of the Study 9

1.1 Purpose of the Study 10

1.2 Methodology and Sources of Data 10

1.3 Limitations of the Study 11

1.4 Outline of the Study 11

Section II County Profile

2.0 Agriculture Sector Profile 12

2.1 Labour Force Characteristics 14

2.1.1 Age Distribution 14

2.1.2 Median Age 14

2.1.3 Labour Force 15

2.1.4 Unemployment, Employment and Participation Rates 16

2.1.5 Median Income 19

2.1.6 Income and Earning 19

Section III Agricultural Commodity Trends, Opportunities and Issues 3.0 Agricultural Commodity Trends 20

3.1 Review of Trends in Area and Number of Farms 20

3.2 Review of Commodity Trends: field Crops and Livestock 21

3.2.1 Field Crops 21

3.2.2 Vegetables 22

3.2.3 Fruit, Berries and Nut Trees 24

3.2.4 Livestock‐ Number of Farms and Animals 25

3.2.5 Commodity Outlook 26

3.3 Other Commodities and Opportunities in Bio‐Products 27

3.3.1 Asian Vegetables 30

3.3.2 Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Plants 32

3.4 Opportunities in Bio‐Products Industries 34

3.4.1 A Brief on Bio‐Products 34

3.4.2 Agricultural Feedstock in the County 36

3.4.3 Processing Industries 39

3.4.4 Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals 42

Section IV Current Marketing Arrangements, Trends and Analysis 4.0 Marketing Arrangements 44

4.1 Review of International Markets, Trends and Opportunities 45

4.1.1 Ontario and Canada Agricultural Trade 48

4.1.2 Emerging Markets for Selected Commodities 48

4.2 Consumption Patterns 55

Section V Trends in Business Patterns and Labour 5.0 Trends in Number of Businesses 59

5.0.1 Businesses in Agriculture and Related Industries 60

5.1 Estimated Employment by Employee Size Range 62

5.1.1 Employment in Agriculture and Related Industries 63

5.1.2 Employment in Agriculture and Related Industries‐ Percentage Change 64

4

5.1.3 LQ, Leading and Lagging Industries: agriculture and Related Industries 65

Section VI Trends in Occupations and Training 6.0 Trends in Occupations and Training 67

6.1 Education by Major Field of Study, 2006 67

6.2 Brantford‐ Occupations in Agriculture and Related Industries 1996‐2006 68

Section VII Issues and Challenges Facing Agriculture and Agri‐Businesses 7.0 Issues of Consolidation of Farms 71

7.1 Issues of Commodity Prices 73

7.2 Issues of Farm Labour 74

7.2.1 Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) 74

7.3 Issues of Farm Share 76

7.3.1 The Farmer’s Share 76

7.4 The Aging Farm Population and Trends in Farm Operators 78

7.4.1 The Aging Farm Population 78

7.5.2 Trends in Farm Operators 79

7.5 Main Issues from the Surveys 81

Section VIII Future Labour Force Challenges, Strategies and Recommendations 8.0 Potential Growth Areas 838.1 Challenges for the Agricultural Sector 838.1.1 Labour force Challenges, Strengths and weaknesses 848.1.2 Labour Force Challenges and Issues: Lessons From the 2009 Dialogue Forum 848.2 Recommendations and Strategies 858.2.1 Recommendations on Training Needs, Future Skills Development and Occupations 878.2.2 Farm Labour Strategies: Lessons from the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council (CAHRC) 89

List of Graphs Graph 2.1 Percentage Distribution of Major Crops 12

Graph 2.2 Percentage Distribution of Farms by Industry Group 12

Graph 2.3 Farms Classified by Total Farm Area 13

Graph 2.4 Age Distribution 14

Graph 2.5 Median Age 15

Graph 2.6 Brantford ‐ Population and Selected Labour Force Variables 15

Graph 2.7 Brantford – Unemployment, Employment and Participation Rates 18

Graph 2.8 Median Income 19

Graph 3.1 Number of Census Farms and Area of Census Farms 20

Graph 3.2 Field Crops: Number of Farms Reporting 22

Graph 3.3 Area Under Field Crops 22

Graph 3.4 Vegetables ‐ Number of Farms Reporting 23

Graph 3.5 Fruit, Berries and Nut Trees‐ Number of Farms Reporting 25

Graph 3.6 Livestock‐ Number of Farms Reporting 25 Graph 4.1 Ontario Agri‐food Trade 2001‐09 45 Graph 4.2 Ontario Exports by Region/Country 46 Graph 4.3 Ontario Ginseng Exports 1997‐2008 53 Graph 4.4 Canada’s Share of World Exports of Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Plants 54 Graph 4.5 Canada Medicinal Plant Export and Imports 55 Graph 4.6 Canada Medicinal Plant Export Destinations 55 Graph 4.7 Per Capita Disappearance of Pork and Beef in Canada 56

Graph 5.1 Distribution of Registered Businesses 59

Graph 5.2 Distribution of Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Registered Businesses 60

Graph 5.3 Percentage Distribution of Top 10 Employers (Small and Medium Enterprises) 62

5

Graph 5.4 Top 10 Employers (All Businesses) 62

Graph 7.1 Number of Farms by Gross Farm Receipts 72

Graph 7.2 Average Prices Received by Ontario Farmers 1981‐2009‐ Crops 73

Graph 7.3 Average Livestock Prices Received by Ontario 1981‐2009‐ Livestock 73

Graph 7.4 Average Price Received by Ontario Farmers 1981‐2009‐ Livestock 74

Graph 7.5 Average Age of Farm Operators 78

Graph 7.6 Trends in Farm Operators 81

List of Tables Table 2.1 Employment and Participation Rates 16

Table 2.2: Unemployment Rates and Full time Work 17

Table 2.3: Employment Characteristics by Level of Education‐ Brantford, 2006 18

Table 3.1 Area and Number of Census Farms 21

Table 3.2: Vegetables‐ Percentage Change in Area and Number of Farms 23

Table 3.3 Area and Number of Farms under Fruit, Berries & Nuts Trees 24

Table 3.4 Percentage Change in Number of Farms and Number of Animals 25

Table 3.5 A Asian Vegetables Grown in Ontario 27

Table 3.5 B Asian Vegetables Grown in Ontario 29

Table 3.6 Common Culinary Herbs and Their Uses 31

Table 3.7 Characteristics of Bio‐Products in Canada and the Provinces 34

Table 3.8 Sources of Biomass 35 Table 3.9 Biofuel Yields for Different Feedstock in selected Countries 37 Table 3.10 Annual Fuel Ethanol Production by Country 38 Table 3.11 Crop and Livestock Biomass in Brant County 39

Table 3.12 Processing and Distribution Industries in Brant County 40

Table 3.13 Soy Products and Uses 41

Table 3.14 Soy Products and Uses in Food 42

Table 3.15 Examples of Functional Food Components 43

Table 4.1 Ontario Marketing Boards for Agricultural Commodities and Products 44 Table 4.2 Ontario Exports by Commodity Group‐ Change in Trade 46 Table 4.3 Ontario Imports ‐ Change in Trade 2001‐2009 47 Table 4.4 Ontario Trade Balance ‐Change in Trade 2001‐2009 48 Table 4.5 Select Emerging Markets for Horticultural Products 49 Table 4.6 Emerging Markets for Floriculture and Nursery (based on 2008 market size) 49 Table 4.7 Emerging Markets for Fruit Products 50 Table 4.8 Select Emerging Markets for Vegetable Products 50 Table 4.9 Select Emerging Markets for Potatoes and Potato Products 51 Table 4.10 Emerging Markets for Maple Products 51 Table 4.11 Emerging Markets for Honey 52 Table 4.12 Emerging Markets for Cereals/Grains (in US $’000) 52 Table 4.13 Canada’s Top Export Destinations for Ginseng Roots 53 Table 4.14 Canada’s Top Export Destinations for Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Plants 54

Table 4.15 Consumption of Fruits in Canada (kg per person) 57

Table 4.16 Consumption of Fresh Vegetables in Canada (kg per person) ‐2004‐2008 58

Table 5.1 Number of Businesses by Employee Size Range 60

Table 5.2 Percentage Change of Number of Businesses‐ Agriculture and Related Industries 61

Table 5.3 Estimated Employment by Employee Size Range 63

Table 5.4 Employment in Agriculture and Related Industries 64

Table 5.5 Percentage Change in Employment 2008‐2010 65

6

Table 5.6 Leading and Lagging Sectors/Industries: Agriculture and Related Sectors/Industries 66

Table 6.1 Level of Education by Age Group 67

Table 6.2 Educational Level by Major Field of Study: Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation 68

Table 6.3A Brantford‐ Occupations in Agriculture and Related Industries 1996‐2006 69

Table 6.3B Brantford‐ Occupations in Agriculture and Related Industries 1996‐2006 70

Table 7.1 Total Farm Area Classification 71

Table 7.2 Agricultural Wage Rate and Approved Employment Periods – 2010 75

Table 7.3 Total Worker Arrivals and Cancellations 76

Table 7.4 The Farmer’s Share 2008‐09 77

Table 7.5 Summary of the Results of the Farmer’s Share Project 2008‐09 77

Table 7.6 The Farmer’s Share 1981‐2005 78

Table 7.7 Farm Operator Characteristics 1996‐2006 80

List of Appendices References 92

Appendix 1 Median Age and Age Distribution 93

Appendix 2 Median Income 94

Appendix 3 Operators of Farms with One Operator 95

Appendix 3Operators on Farms with two or More Operators 96

Appendix 4 Field Crops Absolute and Percentage Change 97

Appendix 5 Area in Crops (Acres) 98

Appendix 6 Fruit, Nuts and Berries‐ Percentage Change in Area and Number of Farms 99

Appendix 7 Livestock‐ Change in Number of Farms and Animals 100

Appendix 8 Per Capita Disappearance of Pork and Beef 101

Appendix 9 Total Gross Receipts 102

7

ExecutiveSummary The agricultural sector has gone through many dramatic changes over the years. The number of farms and farm operators has been declining. Many farms are fighting for survival. A lot of farms are being consolidated into larger farm corporations. The costs of inputs and energy have been rising, affecting the profits of many operations. The fluctuation of the Canadian dollar has hurt the competitiveness of many agri‐businesses on world markets. Meanwhile, the economic recession has changed the economic landscape of many rural Ontario communities. In addition to the above, agriculture still faces labour shortages for both skilled and unskilled workers. The Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council estimates a total vacancy rate of 9 percent for seasonal and non‐seasonal work. The council reports that producers of berries, vegetables, tree fruit and vine are projecting a need to increase their employee numbers by 52 percent over the next 5 years. These changes create employment and labour force challenges for farms and agri‐businesses. Farmers must continually learn new skills and update their knowledge to run their farms/businesses. Some farmers have trouble finding workers with the right skills to do the job. Retaining well‐trained, skilled workers can also be a big challenge. To better understand what is happening in the agricultural sector and its related industries, a comprehensive analysis of the sector was needed to identify issues, concerns, emerging opportunities and potential training requirements. It was then decided to look more closely at the issues affecting agriculture, including its labour force challenges. The issues affecting agriculture are closely related to ‐‐ and in most cases have direct impact on ‐‐ job creation and training. Therefore, this study was launched in July, 2010, in five counties where farming and agri‐businesses provide employment to thousands of people: Brant, Elgin, Middlesex, Norfolk and Oxford. Funding for the project was provided by the Sand Plains Community Development Fund. The purpose of the study is to look at issues affecting agriculture, their impact on job creation and training, and to identify emerging labour force trends, skills and training requirements. To better understand what is taking place in agriculture and its related industries, and link the findings to future training needs, the study attempted to answer the following questions:

What are the current and likely future trends in agriculture?

What are the potential growth areas or sub‐sectors in agriculture?

What sectors or sub‐sectors are leading and/or lagging?

How do labour force characteristics affect the agricultural sector and its related industries?

How does educational level affect the agricultural sector?

What are the current and future training needs for agriculture and its related industries?

How do incomes and wages affect labour supply market in agriculture and related industries?

What are potential areas in bio‐technology that could complement or capture added‐value opportunities for the agricultural sector in the community?

KeyFindingsandRecommendations It is evident that agriculture plays a major role in many communities. However, there are significant obstacles that need to be addressed. The farm population is aging and there are fewer new entrants than they were 20 years ago. With the declining number of farm operators, there is a need to develop strategies that encourage young people to join farming careers. New entrants face many obstacles need to be solved. The uncertainty in agriculture, lack of profitability in farming, availability of labour and competiveness of the sector are major concerns that have been expressed by many.

8

KeyFindings

Specific key findings include the following:

1. There is an aging farm population and the county will need to replace 44 percent of farm operators in the next 5 to 10 years.

2. The number of farm operators under the age of 35 years is declining at a faster rate than their counterparts. 3. In addition to those with an agricultural background, the county includes a diverse group of occupations such as

machinists, computer programmers, mathematicians, college teachers, electricians, bookkeepers, social workers, etc. This is an indication of the need to upgrade skills.

4. Profitability of farm enterprises continues to be an issue and this has great impact on job creation, training and attracting new entrants into farming occupations.

5. The farmers’ share of commodities continues to be a problem and solutions will require change or shift in policy and alternative business models to address profitability issues.

6. Diversification into alternative crops and added value at farm level will require research and development into other crops and products.

7. The cost of some of the government regulations is forcing many small processors to close their businesses. 8. Significant opportunities for added value in processing, bio‐products, functional foods and nutraceuticals for both

farmers and agri‐businesses that could create jobs. 9. A large export market in the USA and some of the emerging markets worldwide in horticulture, grains, honey,

potatoes and maple products that farmers could take advantage of.

Recommendations

1. Skills and training should centre on developing and upgrading skills in green jobs and bio‐products. 2. There is need to develop strategies that will encourage young people to enter farming careers. 3. Advance the level of education and training required to efficiently run today’s farms. 4. Upgrade occupational skills to meet changes in technology, regulations and compliance. 5. Support research and development of value‐added commodities and alternative crops. 6. Educate and train farmers in the production of energy at the farm level which will contribute to lower costs and

self‐sufficiency. 7. Support the development of alternative business models to address profitability issues. 8. Farmers and food processors would like to see government cut back on some of the regulatory and compliance

paper work.

9

SectionIIntroduction

1.0 BackgroundoftheStudyAgriculture and agri‐businesses are important to many Ontario communities, providing jobs for thousands of people. According to Statistics Canada, Ontario total farm receipts were approximately $9.65 billion in 2009. Employment in Ontario agriculture was estimated at 84,100 in 2009. Food manufacturing provided an additional 85,873 jobs.

However, the challenges facing agriculture and agri‐businesses today are numerous. The sector has gone through many dramatic changes over the years. The number of farms and farm operators has been declining for years. Many farms are fighting for survival. A lot of farms are being consolidated into larger farm corporations. The cost of inputs and energy have been rising, affecting the profits of many operations. The fluctuation of the Canadian dollar has hurt the competitiveness of many agri‐businesses on world markets. Meanwhile, the economic recession has changed the economic landscape of many rural Ontario communities. In addition to the above, agriculture faces labour shortages for both skilled and unskilled workers. The Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council estimates a total vacancy rate of 9 percent for seasonal and non‐seasonal work. The council reports that producers of berries, vegetables, tree fruit and vine are projecting a need to increase their employee numbers by 52 percent over the next 5 years. That is over 10 percent increase per year.

These changes create employment and labour force challenges for farms and agri‐businesses. Farmers must continually learn new skills and update their knowledge to run their farms/businesses. Some farmers have trouble finding workers with the right skills to do the job. Retaining well‐trained, skilled workers is also a challenge. With the decline of the tobacco industry, farms and agri‐businesses are looking for new ventures which will require different skills and training. Value‐added at the farm level is becoming more and more popular as many farmers are reacting to the economic uncertainty by attempting to increase the value of their commodities. The same applies to agri‐businesses as they try to find value added opportunities for their by‐products. These new opportunities will require new skills and training. As our communities transition into green economies and sustainable development, new skills and training will also be required.

Yet, we have little information about the workforce on farms, regardless of whether the farm is worked by the owner or by employees. Agri‐businesses, big and small, face the same issues with their workforce. Many employers agree there is a demand for a well trained workforce with more skills and technical knowledge than previously needed. The emergence of bio‐products has brought in some opportunities for agri‐businesses and farmers. Very little is known about the workforce and emerging occupations in the rapidly growing industry of bio‐products, which use agricultural‐based biomass. Information is crucial for workforce training and planning for the future. Colleges and universities that are involved in training the workers of tomorrow also need information about the trends in agriculture‐related careers and emerging occupations.

To better understand what is happening in the agricultural sector and its related industries, a comprehensive analysis of the sector was needed to identify issues, concerns, emerging opportunities and potential training requirements. It was then decided to look more closely at the issues affecting agriculture, including its labour force challenges. The issues affecting agriculture are closely related to ‐‐ and in most cases have direct impact on ‐‐ job creation and training. Therefore, a new study was launched in July, 2010, in five counties where farming and agri‐businesses provide employment to thousands of people: Brant, Elgin, Middlesex, Norfolk and Oxford.

Funding for the project was provided by the Sand Plains Community Development Fund in March 2010 and was made available in June 2010. The project was officially launched on July 31st, 2010. Each of the five counties was analyzed separately to identify issues, challenges and problems unique to each county. To get to the root of the problems and come up with meaningful solutions, it was decided to get views of the people involved in agriculture in each community. Surveys were designed to get people’s perceptions on the problems facing agriculture and in particular labour force and training issues for primary and secondary agri‐businesses. The next section discusses the purpose of the study.

10

1.1 PurposeoftheStudyThe main purpose the study is to look at priority issues affecting agriculture, their impact on job creation and training and to identify emerging labour force trends, skills and training requirements. The study will hopefully identify potential growth areas in agriculture. This, in turn, will shed light on job and career opportunities and the need for new occupations, skills and training. The study will attempt to respond to the following key questions:

What are the current and likely future trends in agriculture and agri‐business?

What are the potential growth areas or sub‐sectors in agriculture?

What sectors or sub‐sectors are leading and/or lagging?

How do labour force characteristics affect the agricultural sector and its related industries?

How does educational level affect the agricultural sector?

What are the current and future training needs for agriculture and its related industries?

How do incomes and wages affect labour supply market in agriculture and related industries?

What are potential areas in bio‐technology that could complement or capture add‐value opportunities for the agricultural sector in the community?

1.2MethodologyandSourcesofDataThe methodology included analysis of agriculture and the agri‐food industry using secondary data from 1996 to 2010. The main sources of secondary data were Statistics Canada, Ontario Ministry Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and Canada Business Patterns Data (CBP). Data on crops and livestock were in most cases confined to census data for 2001 and 2006, rather than recent data found on the OMAFRA website. Census data covers crops and acreage; number of farms and operators, and livestock numbers in detail. Recent data, however, does not cover some of the variables needed for the study, such as number of farms producing certain crops and livestock. For that reason the study was confined to data from 2001 and 2006 census years. In some cases data before 2001 was utilized. Information from Canadian Business Patterns data was used to analyze business and labour characteristics for the county. Literature review concentrated on articles and materials on agricultural labour, past surveys done in the community and elsewhere, commodity issues, international trade and bio‐technology opportunities in agriculture. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) reports on Rural Communities and Statistics Canada Community Profiles were utilized extensively. Trend analysis was crucial in order to identify key issues, potential growth areas and new markets. Statistical tables, tabulations and calculations were used to support the analysis. Recommendations and strategies for future development were made based on overall findings of the study and other relevant studies.

1.3LimitationsoftheStudyMost of the data is from the 2001 and 2006 censuses. The data is therefore dated. With the economic downturn of the last three years, a lot has changed that could alter some of the findings. We hoped to get recent data from the surveys. The surveys completed provided useful qualitative data, but were insufficient in number for quantitative purposes. Some of the data variables changed from year to year, making it impossible to compare over time periods. This is especially true for Rural and Economic Development Data Intelligence (REDDI) data from 2003 and 2007. The survey data for universities such as Guelph (Ontario College of Agriculture) was limited in scope, and other Ontario colleges declined to participate. There are also gaps in various county level agricultural statistics for some years due to a lack of available data. Statistics taken from the OMAFRA website are accompanied by a caution on the use of county statistics as noted:

11

“Please note that the figures above are estimates primarily derived from a probability survey conducted by Statistics Canada, in conjunction with other administrative data sources. The probability survey is designed to produce accurate field crop area and yield information for the province as a whole. However, the accuracy of county and district estimates may suffer, particularly when the level of farming activity in a given area is relatively small. Thus, a measure of caution is advised when using sub‐provincial estimates”.

For surveys, a list of businesses was made and surveys were sent by mail and e‐mail. Surveys were sent to 700 businesses and 1,500 farmers. Seventy participants responded providing a sampling of local issues.

1.4OutlineoftheStudyThe study is structured in eight parts which are described below. Section I outlines the introduction, objectives, data and methodology of the study. Section II profiles the county, giving the reader information on agriculture and some special characteristics of the county and the community. The same section is devoted to labour force characteristics for the county as they relate to population composition, income, labour force structure and employment, participation and unemployment rates. Section III investigates and outlines agricultural commodity trends, potential growth areas and issues using 2001 and 2006 census data. This data, though not recent, provides a detailed account of many commodities at county level. Section IV examines current marketing arrangements, international trade and opportunities in bio‐products and emerging markets in international trade of some selected commodities. Section V analyses agri‐businesses and labour flow trends. Section VI analyses occupations and training in agriculture and its supporting industries. Section VII analyses challenges and issues facing agriculture, since these have great implications on job creation and employee training and retention. Section VIII outlines future labour force strategies, skills and recommendations on priority issues affecting agriculture and training.

12

SectionIICountyProfile

2.0AgriculturalSectorProfileBrant County’s central location and proximity to major cities in both the U.S. and Canada, universities and major highways makes it an ideal place for a variety of business ventures. With the economic downturn of the last few years and the decline of the manufacturing industry in the 1980s and 1990s, the county has seen several company closures over the years. Growth sectors include food, machinery and chemical manufacturing, warehouse distribution and plastics and rubber products (Brantford Economic Development Department). In Brant County, 125,099 people were enumerated in the 2006 census. According to recent estimates by Statistics Canada, the population now stands at 139,370, an increase of 11.4 percent from 2006. Total labour force (15+ years) was estimated at 77,049 in 2009 (Brantford Economic Development Department). The county supports a wide range of crops, vegetables and livestock. Agriculture is very important to the county as it provides a way of life for most rural people and jobs for the urban population through agri‐businesses. Gross farm receipts were estimated at $166,744,203 in 2006, an average of $203,844 gross receipts per farm. Brant County has a land area of 167,352 acres (67,727 hectares) with an average farm area/size of 205 acres (83 hectares). Farm land in crops was estimated at 138,379 acres (56,000 hectares) in 2006. Major crops include soybeans, corn for grain, alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures, winter wheat and fall rye. These major crops accounted for 66.5 percent of total farm area in 2006 as shown below. Soybeans accounted for 23.8 percent of the total area, followed by corn for grain (20.8%), alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures (9.6%), winter wheat (8.1%) and fall rye (3.8%).

Graph2.1:PercentageDistributionofMajorCrops

Source: Statistics Canada Agricultural Community Profile, 2006

Although the number of farms has been declining over the years, the county had 818 farms in 2006, an addition of 1 farm from the 2001 census. It is one of the few counties in the province, if any, that did not lose any census farms between 2001 and 2006. There were 1,205 farm operators in the county with an average age of 53.5 years. This is above the national average of 52 years and provincial average of 52.6 years and slightly above the Southern Ontario Region average of 53.1 years. Farm operators represented less than a percentage point of the total population in 2006 at 0.96 percent. Gender distribution of farm operators was 71.1 percent male and 29.9 percent female, consistent with national and provincial figures. With 1,205 farm operators and 818 farms, there is an average of 1.5 operators per farm. Distribution of farms classified by industry group shows that 31.4 percent of the farms fall under oilseeds and grain farming (257 farms), followed by other crop farming which accounted for 18.8 percent of total farms in 2006.

23.8%

20.8%9.6%8.1%

3.8%17.3%

Brant County: Farm Area ‐ Percentage Distribution of Major Crops ‐ 2006 Census

Soybeans

Corn for grain

Alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures

Winter wheat

Fall rye

Other crops

13

Graph2.2:PercentageDistributionofFarmsbyIndustryGroup


Cattle ranching and farming represented 15.4 percent (126) of the total number of farms. Other animal production accounted for 14.8 percent of the total farms (121) and the lowest was sheep and goat farming which constituted 1.3 percent of total farms in 2006. The graph above provides more information. Majority of the farms in the county had between 10‐69 acres. These accounted for 31.4 percent of total farms. Farms with area between 70‐129 acres represented 22.2 percent of total farms, in line with provincial and Southern Ontario figures of 22.5 and 20 percent respectively and almost doubling that of national level at 11.4 percent.

Graph2.3:FarmsClassifiedbyTotalFarmArea


Cattle ranching and farming 15% Hog & pig farming

2%

Poultry & egg production 3%

Sheep & goat farming 1%

Other animal production 15%

Oilseed & grain farming 32%

Vegetable & melon farming 6%

Fruit & tree‐nut farming 2%

Greenhouse, nursery & floriculture production

5%

Other crop farming 19%

Brant County: Percentage Distribution of Farms by Industry Group (NAICS) ‐ 2006 Census

6.5

31.4

22.2

9.3

9.2

9.9

3.43.4

1.81.5 0.9

0.1

0

0.4

Brant County: Farms Classified by Total Farm Area ‐ 2006 Census

Under 10 acres10 to 69 acres70 to 129 acres130 to 179 acres180 to 239 acres240 to 399 acres400 to 559 acres560 to 759 acres760 to 1,119 acres1,120 to 1,599 acres1,600 to 2,239 acres2,240 to 2,879 acres2,880 to 3,519 acres3,520 acres and over

14

2.1LabourForceCharacteristics

2.1.1AgeDistributionThis section sheds some light on the characteristics of the general population in the county. The distribution of the age groups followed the same trend as that observed at national and provincial level. Age cohort 0‐14 declined over the 1996 and 2006 period. The age cohort 65 and over increased moderately between 1996 and 2006 (5.2%), an indication of an aging population. People are now living longer than they were before and, at the same time, the birth rate is declining. The county’s primary labour force (ages 15‐64) increased slightly between 1996 and 2006 (1.9%) and was above national (1%) and provincial (0.7%) percentage rates. This group accounted for 66.8 percent of the population in 2006, up from 64.2 percent in 1996. Age cohort 0‐14 represented 18 percent of the population in the county in 2006, down from 22.3 percent in 1996. Age cohort 65 years and over increased slightly from 13.4 percent in 1996 to 14.5 in 2006. This group remained above the 14 percent level since 2001. The age group distribution for Brantford also followed the same trend as that observed at national and provincial level, with age group 0‐14 years declining between 1996 and 2006 census years by 7.4 percent and age group 65 years and over increasing by 2.1 percent, an indication of a declining younger population and a growing older population. This will likely create labour shortages in the long run, as fewer young people enter the labour force and an increasing number of old workers retire. The primary labour force for Brantford increased by 2.2 percent during the same period. Additional information is provided in appendix 1.

Graph2.4:AgeDistribution

Source: Statistics Canada Census Trends, 1996-2006

2.1.2MedianAgeThe median age is the center point at which exactly one half of the population is younger and the other half is older. The median age for the county has been moving upwards since 1996, indicating of an aging population. The median age pattern for the city of Brantford is consistent with national and provincial trends. The national, provincial and the city of Brantford have each added 2 years to the median age from the previous census year; a total of four years over a span of ten years. Brant County has a slightly higher median age at 41.1 years, compared to national (39.5 years) and provincial (39 years) figures, again an indication of an aging population. Graph 2.5 below provides more information.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 to 14years

15 to 64years

65 yearsand over

0 to 14years

15 to 64years

65 yearsand over

0 to 14years

15 to 64years

65 yearsand over

0 to 14years

15 to 64years

65 yearsand over

Brant Brantford Ontario Canada

Percentage

Distribution

Brant and Brantford: Age Distribution (%) in Comparison with National and Provincial Trends 1996‐2006 Census Years

1996

2001

2006

15

Graph2.5:MedianAge

Source: Statistics Canada ‐ Census Trends 1996‐2006

2.1.3LabourForce Despite the economic downturn over the last few years, the number of people in employment in the city of Brantford has been increasing steadily. The number of people in full time work increased, while those in part‐time remained more or less the same, with minor fluctuations until 2009 when a slight downturn was experienced. Between 1987 and 2010, the lowest level for full time work was in 1997, as shown in the graph below. The city of Brantford and Brant County lost a total of 14 companies in 2009, resulting in a loss of 2249 jobs. Only 5 new companies came to the area, with total of 78 jobs (Brantford‐Brant Economic Development Department, company closures and openings, 2009). Between 1987 and 2010, the lowest level for full time work was in 1997 at 26,800, as shown in the graph below.

Graph2.6:Brantford‐PopulationandSelectedLabourForceVariables

Source: Statistics Canada – Labour Market Survey 1987‐2010

Canada Ontario Brant Brantford

1996 35.3 35.2 36.9 35.4

2001 37.6 37.2 38.9 37.5

2006 39.5 39 41.1 39.1

32

34

36

38

40

42

Years

Brant & Brantford: Median Age vs National & Provincial Trends 1996‐2006 Census.Years

62.5

81.5

37

26.8

41.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Numbers ('000)

Brantford: Population and Selected Labour Force Variables 1987 (Dec)‐2010 (Sept)

Population

Labour force

Employed

Full‐time

Part‐time

16

2.1.4Employment,ParticipationandUnemploymentRatesThere were minor increases in both participation and employment rates for Brant County and the City of Brantford. Participation rates for women rose slightly during the 1996 and 2006 period, but were still below those of their male counterparts. The same trend is observed at national and provincial level. The participation rate for males in Brant County (76 and above) were well above those at national (72) and provincial (72‐73) level during the 1996 and 2006 period. The table below provides more information.

Table2.1EmploymentandParticipationRatesEmployment Characteristics/ County/Province/National

1996 2001 2006 Difference1996‐2001

Difference 1996‐2006


Brant County

Employment rate 66.6 68.2 68.4 1.6 1.8 0.2

Employment rate for males 73.6 74.9 74.1 1.3 0.5 ‐0.8

Employment rate for females 59.7 61.5 62.7 1.8 3.0 1.2

Participation rate 70.7 71 71.6 0.3 0.9 0.6

Participation rate for males 77 77.9 76.6 0.9 ‐0.4 ‐1.3

Participation rate for females 64.6 64.2 66.5 ‐0.4 1.9 2.3

Brantford

Employment rate 58 61.1 62 3.1 4.0 0.9

Employment rate for males 65.5 66.7 67.4 1.2 1.9 0.7

Employment rate for females 51.2 56 57.1 4.8 5.9 1.1

Participation rate 63.8 65.6 66.4 1.8 2.6 0.8

Participation rate for males 71.4 71.6 71.9 0.2 0.5 0.3

Participation rate for females 56.9 60.1 61.5 3.2 4.6 1.4

Ontario

Employment rate 60.2 63.2 62.8 3.0 2.6 ‐0.4

Employment rate for males 66.6 69.1 68.1 2.5 1.5 ‐1.0


Participation rate 66.3 67.3 67.1 1.0 0.8 ‐0.2

Participation rate for males 73 73.4 72.5 0.4 ‐0.5 ‐0.9

Participation rate for females 60 61.5 62.1 1.5 2.1 0.6

Canada

Employment rate 58.9 61.5 62.4 2.6 3.5 0.9

Employment rate for males 65.2 67.2 67.6 2.0 2.4 0.4


Participation rate 65.5 66.4 66.8 0.9 1.3 0.4

Participation rate for males 72.7 72.7 72.3 0.0 ‐0.4 ‐0.4

Participation rate for females 58.6 60.5 61.6 1.9 3.0 1.1

Source: Statistics Canada - Census Trends 1996-2006 Unemployment rates were higher in 1996, but declined moderately from 1996 to 2006. Women had the highest unemployment rates; in some cases the rates were higher than overall unemployment rates at the county, provincial or national level.

17

Table2.2:UnemploymentRatesandFulltimeWork


The graph below shows movements and trends in unemployment, employment and participation rates for the City of Brantford. It is clear that unemployment rates for the City of Brantford were unstable: from a low of 3.9 percent in 1998, to a high of 14.6 percent in 1992. The unemployment rate for the City of Brantford was estimated at 8.5 in September of 2010, down from 10.2 percent in 2009, but close to the 2001 level of 8.4 percent. There is need to reduce unemployment rate, especially for women. Participation rate for the city dropped between 1989 and 1998, before it picked up again to reach its 1989 level of 72.3 in 2009. During the 1987 and 2010 period, both participation and employment rates for the city of Brantford exhibited minor fluctuations, with no clear trend. This could be an indication of a slow growth in the economy during this period. The economy has not grown much since the 1980s when manufacturing started its downward trend as a result of business closures. In recent years there have been some business openings in the area; unfortunately there have been more closures than openings. The county’s percentage of women working full time, full year increased slightly from 29.7 percent in 1996 to 33.1 in 2006. The percentages were still below those of men, but above the national (30.8) and provincial (32%) rates during the same period.

Unemployment and Work Activity/ County/Province/National

1996 2001 2006 Difference1996‐2001


Difference2001‐2006

Brant County

Unemployment rate 5.8 4 4.4 ‐1.8 ‐1.4 0.4

Unemployment rate for males 4.4 3.8 3.3 ‐0.6 ‐1.1 ‐0.5

Unemployment rate for females 7.5 4.2 5.7 ‐3.3 ‐1.8 1.5

% male full‐year, full‐time workers 52.5 53.4 53.3 0.9 0.8 ‐0.1

% female full‐year, full‐time workers 29.7 33.4 33.1 3.7 3.4 ‐0.3

Brantford

Unemployment rate 9.1 6.8 6.7 ‐2.3 ‐2.4 ‐0.1



% male full‐year, full‐time workers 45 48.3 48.1 3.3 3.1 ‐0.2

% female full‐year, full‐time workers 25.3 31.5 31.7 6.2 6.4 0.2

Ontario

Unemployment rate 9.1 6.1 6.4 ‐3.0 ‐2.7 0.3

Unemployment rate for males 8.7 5.8 6 ‐2.9 ‐2.7 0.2



% female full‐year, full‐time workers 28.6 32 32 3.4 3.4 0.0

Canada

Unemployment rate 10.1 7.4 6.6 ‐2.7 ‐3.5 ‐0.8


Unemployment rate for females 10 7.2 6.6 ‐2.8 ‐3.4 ‐0.6


% female full‐year, full‐time workers 26.4 29.9 30.8 3.5 4.4 0.9

18

Graph2.7:Brantford–Unemployment,EmploymentandParticipationRates

Source: Statistics Canada – Labour Market Survey 1987‐2011

Table 2.3 below shows employment characteristics by education level for Brant County. With the exception of the labour force holding masters and certificates below degree level, unemployment rates were higher for those with low levels of education and lower for the highly educated labour force. Unemployment rate was 9.4 percent in 2006 for those without diploma or certificate, compared to labour force with trades, college and university certificates whose unemployment rates ranged between 3 and 6 percent. Participation and employment rates also increased with the level of education. The labour force with no high school diploma had the lowest participation (47.8%) and employment (43.3%) rates, an indication of the need to upgrade educational levels for those who do not have any form of post secondary certificate, diploma or degree. With changes and advances in technology, most future jobs will require a minimum of secondary education or above.

Table2.3:EmploymentCharacteristicsbyLevelofEducation‐Brantford,2006

Educational Level Participation

Rate Employment

Rate Unemployment

Rate

Distribution of Total Labour

Force

Distribution of Population in Labour Force

Distribution of Employed Population

Total ‐ Highest certificate, diploma or degree

67.8 63.7 6 100 100 100

No certificate, diploma or degree 47.8 43.3 9.4 28.5 20.1 19.4

Certificate, diploma or degree 75.8 71.9 5.2 71.5 79.9 80.6

High school certificate or equivalent

73.2 68.6 6.2 28.4 30.7 30.6

Apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma

68.6 65.5 4.6 9.6 9.7 9.9

College, CEGEP or other non‐university certificate or diploma

80.7 76.7 4.9 19.6 23.3 23.6

University certificate, diploma or degree

79.4 76.1 4 13.8 16.2 16.5

University certificate or diploma below bachelor level

73.1 68.6 6.1 2.8 3.0 3.0

University certificate or degree 81 78.1 3.5 11.0 13.2 13.5

Bachelor's degree 81.1 78.4 3.3 7.2 8.7 8.9

University certificate or diploma above bachelor level

84 81 3.6 1.5 1.9 1.9

Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine or optometry

83.1 83.1 3.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Master's degree 77.1 73.2 5.5 1.6 1.9 1.9

Earned doctorate 80 78.2 0 0.3 0.3 0.3

Source: Statistics Canada ‐ 2006 Census. Catalogue Number 97‐559‐XCB2006020.

72.3 72.350.2

3.9

14.6

4.10

5

10

15

20

0

20

40

60

80

Percentage

Percentage

Brantford: Participation, Employment and Unemployment Rates 1987 (Dec)-2010(Sept)

Participation rate Employment rate Unemployment rate

19

2.2MedianIncomeandEarningsTotal median income, median household income and median economic family income for the county were all above provincial and national figures. The city of Brantford however, lagged behind the county, provincial and national level median incomes. Women had the lowest total income earnings for all categories and across all levels, even when they worked full, time full year. The lower participation and employment rates for women compared to their male counterparts are reflected in their lower levels of median incomes. In addition, women with lower levels of education are usually found in lower paying jobs and those who decide to stay at home to raise children affect overall median earnings for women. More information is provided in appendix 2.

2.2.1MedianTotalIncomeAlthough median total income for females increased between 1996 and 2006, it was still below those of males, as shown in graph 2.8 below. The difference in median total income between males and females in Brant County was $16,678 (43.4%), in 2006 compared to Brantford with $13,240 (38.9%), Ontario with $12,785 (37.1%) and Canada with $11,764 (36.5%). Median total income for males in Brant County was higher than that of Canada and Ontario during the 1996 and 2006 census years, as shown in graph 2.8 below. This puts the county at a competitive advantage in attracting labour. However, as people lose jobs during the recession, it is possible that median incomes will go down. More information is provided in appendix 2.

Graph2.8:MedianTotalIncome

Source: Statistics Canada - Census Trends 1996-2006

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females

Brant County Brantford Ontario Canada

Dollars ($)

Brant County and Brantford: Male and Female Median Total Incomes ‐ Comparison with National and Provincial Income Trends 1996‐2006 Census Years

1996

2001

2006

20

SectionIIIAgriculturalCommodityTrends,OpportunitiesandIssues

3.1AgriculturalCommodityTrendsTo better understand which crops and livestock have potential for growth, it is important to trace trends in terms of number of farms and acreage under crops and livestock numbers. Farmers usually make their planting/quantity decisions based on several factors such as prices (current, previous and relative), weather conditions and more importantly the profitability of the commodity and available capital.

3.1.1ReviewofTrendsinAreaandNumberofFarmsThe number of farms across Canada has been declining over the years. In the same way, the number of farms growing certain commodities has been declining, reflecting the lack of profitability and in certain cases the lack of markets for some commodities and products. Area under cultivation has not suffered much from the decline in the number of farms, as small and medium farms are being consolidated into large farm corporations and for those that stay in farming, there is a necessity to go big/large, in order to make profits. Most farmers, who gave feedback at farm shows, indicated the need to go big in order to make profits. Others may still argue that small farms are still profitable; it depends on what one is producing. For example, a vegetable plot of 3 acres can make a profit and more importantly feed over a 100 people for a whole season. In general, farmers are producing more on less land. In Brant County, the number of reporting farms declined from 1,010 in 1991 to 818 in 2006; a 19 percent decline. During the same period, area increased slightly by 0.4 percent and rose by 5.5 percent between 2001 and 2006. There were some yearly fluctuations in acreage, with a high of 177,287 acres 1996. Provincial and national figures showed significant declines in number of farms and minor declines in acreage between 1991 and 2006. See table 3.1 and graph 3.1 for more details.

Graph3.1NumberofCensusFarmsandAreaofCensusFarms


With the decline in number of farms and very little change in area under cultivation, average farm area has been rising over the years. Average farm area for Brant County was 165 in 1991 and 205 in 2006, a difference of 40 acres or 24.2 percent increase. Southern Ontario average farm area increased by 42 acres between 1991 and 2006, while that of Ontario and Canada increased by 37 and 130 acres respectively. This is an indication of farmers responding to the economic and market conditions. With the rising cost of production and falling profits, farmers are forced to go big to capture economies or are forced out of farming.

1991 1996 2001 2006

Area of farms 166,626 177,287 158,693 167,356

Number of farms 1,010 984 817 818

Average area of farms 165 180 194 205

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

145,000150,000155,000160,000165,000170,000175,000180,000

Acres/Number of farm

s

Acres

Brant County: Number of Census Farms and Area of Census Farms 1991‐2006

21

Table3.1:AreaandNumberofCensusFarmsSelected Variable Census Years Difference Percentage Change (%)

Location 1991 1996 2001 2006 1991‐2006

2001‐2006 1991‐2006

2001‐2006

Number of farms

Brant County 1,010 984 817 818 ‐192 1 ‐19.0 0.1

Southern Ontario 23,034 22,427 19,631 18,665 ‐4369 ‐966 ‐19.0 ‐4.9

The Province 68,633 67,520 59,728 57,211 ‐11422 ‐2517 ‐16.6 ‐4.2

Canada 280,043 276,548 246,923 229,373 ‐50670 ‐17550 ‐18.1 ‐7.1

Area of farms (acres)

Brant County 166,626 177,287 158,693 167,356 730 8,663 0.4 5.5

Southern Ontario 3,902,841 4,100,912 3,985,132 3,934,766 31,925 ‐50,366 0.8 ‐1.3

The Province 13,470,653 13,879,565 13,507,357 13,310,216 ‐160,437 ‐197,141 ‐1.2 ‐1.5

Canada 167,423,057 168,167,475 166,802,197 167,010,491 ‐412,566 208,294 ‐0.2 0.1

Average area of farms (acres)

Brant 165 180 194 205 40 11 24.2 5.7

Southern Ontario 169 183 203 211 42 8 24.9 3.9

The Province 196 206 226 233 37 7 18.9 3.1

Canada 598 608 676 728 130 52 21.7 7.7

Source: Statistics Canada ‐ Census Trends 1996‐2006 and OMAFRA, Census county data, 1991‐2006

3.2ReviewofCommodityTrends:FieldCropsandLivestock

3.2.1FieldCropsMost of the crops grown in the county had declined in both number of farms and area. Out of the 12 top field crops in 2006, only soybeans, winter wheat, ginseng, and potatoes had increases in both number of farms and area. Corn for grain which was the number one crop in 2001 in terms of number of farms and area, lost 68 farms (or 20.5%) and 4,981 acres (or 12.5%). The losses in both number and area were more than those recorded for tobacco (‐35 farms and ‐2,022 acres) and oats (‐35 farms and ‐771 acres). However, corn for grain still remains a major crop in the county and has great potential for growth as demand is likely to increase from both energy and feed industries. In terms of area, it was still the second largest crop after soybeans, in 2006. See graphs 3.1 and 3.2 for more details.

In terms of area, soybeans had the biggest increase of 10,194 or 34.3 percent, followed by winter wheat at 5,040 acres or 58.7 percent and ginseng at 1,052 acres or 108.9 percent. These trends are somewhat similar to those recorded at regional, provincial and national level. Winter wheat is still the number one crop and it had significant increases in both number of farms and area, provincially and nationally. In contrast, corn for grain and barley had huge declines in both number of farms and acreage. Barley seems to have problems with markets; farmers at farm shows mentioned the lack of a market for barley. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) however, expect barley consumption to increase for both malting and other purposes in the coming decade, with increases in consumption in China (malting), and Arabia (feed), Iran (feed) and North Africa. The prices for barley are expected to stay at high levels because of import restrictions in Russia and reduced production in the northern hemisphere.

22

Graph3.2FieldCrops:NumberofFarmsReporting

Source: Statistics Canada: Agricultural Community Profile 2001 and 2006

Graph3.3AreaunderFieldCrops


3.2.2VegetablesThere are several types of vegetables grown in Brant County. Both area under vegetables and number of farms reporting vegetable production increased between 2001 and 2006. Total area increased by 2 per cent to 4,917 acres, while the number of farms went up by 12.3 percent from 65 to 73. In terms of individual vegetables, there were no significant decreases in number of farms except under sweet corn which recorded a loss of 7 farms or 31.8 percent from 2001 census. Notable increases in number of farms were registered under squash, pumpkins and zucchini (up by 10 farms or 50%), dry onions (increased by 8 farms or 100%), tomatoes (rose by 7 farms or 31.8%) and other vegetables saw an increase of 11 farms or 50 percent.

050

100150200250300350

Number of Farm

sBrant County: Field Crops ‐ Number of Farms Reporting

2001 and 2006 Census Years

2001

2006

Totalwheat

Winterwheat

OatsCorn forgrain

Corn forsilage

Total rye Fall Rye SoybeansAlfalfa &alfalfa

mixtures

All othertame hay& foddercrops

Tobacco Potatoes Ginseng

2001 9,211 8,581 2,239 39,841 2,993 6,902 6,618 29,703 16,350 2,089 5,764 2,720 966

2006 14,850 13,621 1,468 34,860 3,269 6,454 6,314 39,897 16,080 2,738 3,742 3,245 2,018

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Number of Acres

Brant County: Area Under Field Crops 2001 and 2006 Census Years

23

Despite the increase in number of farms, only other vegetables (up by 485 acres or 278.7%) and squash, pumpkin and zucchini (rose by 198 acres or 80.5%) recorded significant increases in acreage. Major declines in acreage were observed under green or wax beans (down by 839 acres or 45.9%), sweet corn (declined by 310 acres or 61.3%) and cabbage (acres dropped by 126 or 94%). See table 3.2 and graph 3.4 for more details.

Graph3.4:Vegetables‐NumberofFarmsReporting


Table3.2:Vegetables‐PercentageChangeinAreaandNumberofFarmsType of Vegetable Percentage Change 2001‐2006 Percentage Distribution 2006

Brant County

Southern Ontario

Province of Ontario

CanadaBrant County

Southern Ontario

Province of Ontario

Canada

Number of farms reporting

Total vegetables 12.3 ‐1.9 ‐0.7 ‐3.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sweet corn ‐31.8 ‐8.1 ‐6.9 ‐7.0 20.5 29.7 35.8 35.6

Tomatoes 31.8 1.1 11.1 8.3 39.7 36.6 36.6 31.9

Squash, pumpkins & zucchini 50.0 20.5 22.6 17.8 41.1 31.6 38.8 35.3

Cucumbers 0.0 ‐7.4 3.7 1.9 24.7 22.2 24.7 25.8

Peppers 27.8 4.1 14.1 12.0 31.5 22.7 20.3 16.6

Green peas 0.0 ‐6.7 5.5 3.6 16.4 17.1 19.5 20.8

Dry Onions 100.0 5.0 12.9 18.2 21.9 10.5 16.6 18.3

Green or wax beans 12.5 14.3 12.1 5.9 24.7 15.5 21.8 25.7

Cabbage ‐10.0 ‐16.8 ‐4.1 ‐4.9 12.3 8.0 11.3 15.9

Other vegetables 50.0 8.1 7.3 12.9 45.2 20.7 27.0 31.4

Area under Vegetables (acres)

Total vegetables 2.0 ‐2.9 ‐8.6 ‐6.5 100 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sweet corn ‐61.3 ‐15.4 ‐21.2 ‐13.8 4.0 24.0 24.8 24.1

Tomatoes 6.9 ‐5.6 ‐4.7 ‐6.7 5.4 17.0 13.0 7.2

Squash, pumpkins & zucchini 80.5 22.8 19.7 16.1 9.0 5.4 6.0 5.3

Cucumbers ‐9.4 ‐51.7 ‐50.5 ‐43.1 6.3 3.4 2.7 2.3

Peppers 10.5 ‐0.7 ‐2.4 5.0 4.3 3.2 2.6 2.0

Green peas ‐56.3 4.1 ‐7.8 ‐3.6 0.7 16.2 13.8 13.4

Dry Onions 1033.3 19.5 4.6 7.4 1.4 2.8 4.5 4.7

Green or wax beans 45.9 12.6 ‐8.9 ‐9.4 20.1 9.3 7.6 8.8

Cabbage ‐94.0 ‐8.0 ‐10.4 14.7 0.2 2.0 2.4 3.5

Other vegetables 278.7 46.0 23.5 0.7 13.4 4.1 4.5 4.2


Totalvegetables

Sweet corn TomatoesSquash,

pumpkins &zucchini

Cucumbers Peppers Green peas Dry OnionsGreen orwax beans

CabbageOther

vegetables

2001 65 22 22 20 18 18 12 8 16 10 22

2006 73 15 29 30 18 23 12 16 18 9 33

01020304050607080

Number of Farm

s

Brant County: Field Crops ‐ Number of Farms Reporting 2001 and 2006 Census Years

24

Unlike Brant County, national, provincial and regional trends registered declines in both number of farms reporting vegetable production and area under vegetables from 2001 to 2006. However, there were some vegetable types that exhibited the same trends from national through county level. Significant increases were recorded in both area and number of farms for squash, pumpkins and zucchini, while sweet corn recorded declines of the same as shown in table 3.2 above.

3.2.3Fruit,BerriesandNutTreesThe number of farms growing fruit, berries and nut trees was 43 in 2001, down to 35 in 2006, an 18.6 percent decline. In 2006 the number of farms producing fruit, berries and nut trees accounted for about 4.27 percent of total farms in the county. Apples and strawberries accounted for 40 to 45 percent of the number of farms. Most of the fruit, berries and nut trees had declines in number of farms except for strawberries and plums and prunes that increased by 40 and 150 and percent, respectively. Acreage under fruit, berries & nut trees also declined by 7.8 percent, a departure from the regional (Southern Ontario) trend, with an increase in area of 2.5 percent. Nationally, acreage rose by 5.3 percent between 2001 and 2006, while Ontario recorded a decline in area of 2.1 percent. Apples, pears and raspberries showed the same declining trend for both number of farms and area from county to national level. See table 3.3, graph 3.4 below and appendix 8 for more details Table3.3AreaandNumberofFarmsunderFruit,Berries&NutsTrees


Fruit, berries & nuts trees 2001 2006 Absolute Change

% Change 2001‐06

% Distribution 2001

% Distribution 2006

Number of farms reporting 43 35 ‐8 ‐18.6 100.0 100.0

Apples total area 25 16 ‐9 ‐36.0 58.1 45.7

Pears total area 13 9 ‐4 ‐30.8 30.2 25.7

Strawberries total area 10 14 4 40.0 23.3 40.0

Raspberries total area 10 6 ‐4 ‐40.0 23.3 17.1

Blueberries total area 7 6 ‐1 ‐14.3 16.3 17.1

Plums & prunes total area 2 5 3 150.0 4.7 14.3

Cherries (sweet) total area 5 2 ‐3 ‐60.0 11.6 5.7

Cherries (sour) total area 6 5 ‐1 ‐16.7 14.0 14.3

Grapes total area 4 2 ‐2 ‐50.0 9.3 5.7

Other fruits, berries & nuts total area 3 2 ‐1 ‐33.3 7.0 5.7

Acres under fruit, berries and nuts

Total area of fruits, berries & nuts 665 613 ‐52 ‐7.8 100.0 100.0

Apples total area 315 193 ‐122 ‐38.7 47.4 31.5

Cherries (sour) total area 120 221 101 84.2 18.0 36.1

Strawberries total area 78 99 21 26.9 11.7 16.2

Pears total area 59 28 ‐31 ‐52.5 8.9 4.6

Raspberries total area 18 9 ‐9 ‐50.0 2.7 1.5

Blueberries total area 16 30 14 87.5 2.4 4.9

25

Graph3.5Fruit,BerriesandNutTrees‐NumberofFarmsReporting


3.2.4Livestock‐NumberofFarmsandAnimalsIn 2006, Brant County had 212 farms under cattle and calves, representing 25.9 percent of total farms, while hens and chickens represented 10 percent of total farms. The number of farms under livestock declined for all major livestock industries at national, provincial, regional and county level. Brant County lost about 10.2 percent of the farms under cattle and calves, which resulted in a decrease of 8.5 percent in livestock numbers between 2001 and 2006. The decline in the number of farms in beef and dairy cows however was not enough to offset the increase in total cows and dairy cows, as their numbers registered some increases. Despite a loss of one farm, the hens and chicken industry recorded a significant increase in the number of birds by 69.3 percent between 2001 and 2006. Some of the trends in number of farms and livestock numbers for the county were consistent with regional, provincial and national trends. See table 3.4 and graph 3.6 for details.

Table3.4:PercentageChangeinNumberofFarmsandNumberofAnimals

Percentage Change in Number of Farms Reporting Livestock Production 2001‐2006

Percentage Change in Livestock Numbers 2001‐2006

Livestock Brant County

Southern Ontario

Province of Ontario

Canada BrantCounty

Southern Ontario

Province of

Ontario

Canada

Total cattle & calves

‐10.2 ‐11.0 ‐11.2 ‐10.0 ‐8.5 ‐7.0 ‐7.4 1.4

Total cows ‐9.8 ‐9.1 ‐10.6 ‐9.9 0.4 0.2 ‐4.4 3.7

Dairy cows ‐16.5 ‐19.6 ‐19.4 ‐20.1 0.9 ‐3.7 ‐9.3 ‐6.1

Beef cows ‐2.8 6.9 ‐7.2 ‐7.8 ‐0.9 6.9 0.4 5.8

Total pigs ‐20.9 ‐13.7 ‐18.1 ‐25.7 ‐1.2 18.0 14.3 7.8

Total sheep & lamb

‐19.4 ‐12.7 ‐14.3 ‐16.6 ‐46.4 ‐14.0 ‐7.8 ‐9.5

Total lamb ‐12.5 ‐11.0 ‐14.3 ‐18.3 ‐43.3 ‐14.9 ‐4.5 ‐13.7

Total hens & chickens

‐1.2 ‐9.5 ‐10.9 ‐14.2 69.3 3.5 1.1 ‐0.7

Turkeys ‐43.8 ‐11.8 ‐15.2 ‐24.0 ‐30.1 0.7 4.5 ‐5.2

Other poultry ‐7.7 ‐21.7 ‐21.4 ‐26.5 ‐40.1 404.0 86.8 ‐3.2

Source: Statistics Canada, Agricultural Community Profiles 2010 and 2006

Total area offruits,

berries &nuts

Apples totalarea

Pears totalarea

Plums &prunes total

area

Cherries(sweet) total

area

Cherries(sour) total

area

Strawberriestotal area

Raspberriestotal area

Blueberriestotal area

Grapes totalarea

Other fruits,berries &nuts total

area

2001 43 25 13 2 5 6 10 10 7 4 3

2006 35 16 9 5 2 5 14 6 6 2 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Number of Farm

s

Brant County: Fruits, Berries and Nuts‐ Number of Farms Reporting 2001 and 2006 Census Years

26

Graph3.6:Livestock‐NumberofFarmsReporting


3.2.5CommodityOutlookAccording to the 2011 Agricultural Market Outlook by BDO we should anticipate the following:

Prices for oats are expected to move upwards as production for 2011 is expected to decline. Oat prices in North America are usually highly correlated with corn prices and usually tend to move close one another.

Corn production to go up and consumption is expected to increase as well. The strong demand for corn from the US and the decrease in world stocks resulting from increased demand will push prices up for 2011. A US farm price of $4.80‐$5.60 per bushel is expected in 2011. AAFC is projecting a $3.94‐$4.70 per bushel. University of Guelph predicts the Chatham Ontario price to be in the range $4.30‐$4.80 per bushel for 2011.

Soybean production is expected to be down in 2011 and consumption is expected to be lower than production. This will increase stocks slightly. US price is expected to be between $10.70 and $12.00.

For vegetables, prices of Canadian vegetables are determined by US market prices since it is the major importer of Canadian vegetables. Fresh market supplies of vegetables (greenhouse) are expected to increase this coming fall and this will lower producer prices for growers. Prices in the US for apples and grapes are expected to increase due to decreased production as a result of bad weather and lower carryover stocks. The increase in prices in the US should give support to Canadian apple prices.

The outlook for pork for 2011 does not look good. The estimated cost for Ontario farmers as of November 2010 was $145‐$155 per 100 kilograms dressed. At this cost of production, breakeven may not be possible for 2011.

US and Canadian potato production is expected to be low this year. Low production levels and tight world supplies in 2010/11 should translate into high prices for potatoes in 2011.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Total cattle& calves

Cows Dairy cows Beef cows Pigs Sheep &lamb

Lamb Hens &chickens

Turkeys Otherpoultry

Number of Farm

s Reporting

Brant County: Number of Farms Reporting Livestock Production‐2001 and 2006 Census Years

2001

2006

27

3.3OtherCommoditiesandOpportunitiesinBio‐Products

3.3.1AsianVegetablesThere are a number of Asian vegetables grown in Ontario that could be a niche market for farmers in the region. These are good candidates for Community Shared Agriculture (CSA). The county may not have a large population of Asian origin, but the surrounding areas do. The Province of Ontario has a large Asian community especially in surrounding metropolitan areas of Toronto, Hamilton and London. The 2006 census counted a population of 684,070 South Asians and 486,325 Chinese in Toronto (Ministry of Finance, Office of Economic Policy, Labour and Demographic Analysis Branch‐ Highlights of 2006 Census). The same census enumerated 20,810 South Asians and 29,405 East and Southeast Asians in Hamilton. The city of London recorded 7,155 South Asians and 16,670 East and Southeast Asians during the 2006 census (Statistics Canada, 2006 census). The table below gives a list of some of the vegetables and their uses. The vegetables listed below could be evaluated among other things, on the premise of their demand, potential for added value and profitability in the county and surrounding areas. A well crafted production and marketing plan is a must to achieve any form of success. The table below gives a list of some of the vegetables and their uses.

Table3.5:AsianVegetablesGrowninOntarioType of Vegetable /Names in Different Languages

English Latin Chinese Japanese Vietnamese Korean Notes

Edible amaranth

Amaranthus mangostanus A. Gangeticus

Cantonese: Hinn choy Mandarin: Xian cai

Hi yu na Rau den do Chambirum ‐ Used like spinach in salads or as a cooked

vegetable. ‐ Common crop production problems include tarnished plant bug; fungus stem and leaf blight and weed control.

Bitter melon

Momordica charantia

Cantonese: Fu gua Mandarin: Ku gua

Nigauri Muop dang, kho qua

Ssunoi ‐Used dried as an herbal medicine and fresh in cooked and stir‐fried dishes. Do not eat seeds. Can also be pickled. ‐Common crop production problems include cucumber beetles and powdery mildew.

Edible burdock

Arctium lappa Cantonese: Ngao pong Mandarin: Niu pang

Gobo Uang ‐Usually cooked in small pieces or pickled.

‐Very distinctive flavour. It also has medicinal uses.

Chinese broccoli / kale

Brassica alboglabra

Cantonese: Gai lan Mandarin: Jie lan

Kailaan Cai ro

‐Used in stir‐fried and other cooked dishes. ‐Common crop production problems include cabbage maggot, flea beetles, downy mildew and nutrient deficiencies.

Chinese chives

Allium tuberosum

Cantonese: Gow choy Mandarin: Jiu cai

Nira

He

Buchu

‐Leaves are used like traditional chives. Flowers are also edible and both have a garlic flavour. Also used in herbal medicines. ‐Common crop production problems include onion maggot, onion thrips and downy mildew.

Chinese okra

Luffa acutangula, Luffa cylindrica

Cantonese: Si gua Mandarin:

Hechima Muop khia, muop huong

‐Not a true okra. Belongs to the cucurbit family but has similar appearance to okra. ‐Edible when immature and can be used like zucchini in a range of fresh, cooked and pickled dishes.

Big leaf mustard Brassica juncea var. involutus, var. foliosa

Cantonese: Dai gai choy Mandarin:

Karashina Cai xanh Gat See red and green mustards.

28

Type of Vegetable /Names in Different Languages


Chinese squash

Cucurbita moschata, Cucurbita maxima

Cantonese: Nam gua Mandarin: Nan gua

Kabocha Bi ro Ho bak

‐Used similarly to traditional squash. ‐Common crop production problems include squash vine borer, cucumber beetles, squash bugs and powdery mildew.

Chrysanthemum greens

Chrysanthemum coronarium Cantonese:

Tong ho choy Mandarin: Tong hao cai

Shungiku

Shungiku

Ssukgat

‐Used as an herbal medicine and as a cooked vegetable combined with other vegetables and in various stir‐fried dishes. ‐Flower petals can be eaten also, either dipped in Japanese saki or pickled.

Flat flowering Chinese leaf cabbage

Brassica campestris Chinensis group var. utilis

Cantonese: Nai yow choy

‐Grows in rosette with crinkly green leaves. ‐May also be called baby choy sum. ‐Uses and crop production concerns similar to choy sum and yow choy.

Flowering edible rape

Brassica chinensis var. oleifera Cantonese: Yow choy Mandarin: You cai

Cantonese: Yow choy Mandarin: You cai

Aburana

Cai ngot

Yuchaeip

‐Uses the same as bok choy and choy sum. ‐Glossier green colour and more upright than choy sum.

Flowering Chinese leaf cabbage


Cantonese: Choy sum Mandarin: Cai xin

Cai ngot non Often referred to as "baby bok choy". Similar uses and production problems as bok choy.

Shanghai pak choy


Cantonese: Shanghai choy sum

Chingensai

Olive green versions of bok choy, pak choy, or choy sum are referred to as "Shanghai" types by growers.

Fuzzy squash

Benincasa hispida var. chieh‐qua

Cantonese: Tsit gua Mandarin: Mao gua, Jie gua

Tohgan Bi chanh Ho bak ‐Called fuzzy squash when harvested immature but called winter melon if left to mature. Cooked in soups or pickled. ‐Common crop production problems are similar to other cucurbits grown in Ontario.

Malabar spinach Basella alba, B. rubra

Cantonese: Lo kwai Mandarin: Zi luo kui, Lu luo kui

Tsuru‐murasaki

Mong toi

‐Used in fresh and cooked dishes similarly to traditional spinach. Red and green varieties exist. Mucilaginous quality makes it good as a thickener in soups and stews. ‐Common crop production problems include tarnished plant bug.

Source: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/98‐033.htm

29

Table3.5:AsianVegetablesGrowninOntario(cont’d)Type of Vegetable /Names in Different Languages


Malabar spinach

Basella alba, B. rubra

Cantonese: Lo kwai Mandarin: Zi luo kui, Lu luo kui

Tsuru‐murasaki

Mong toi

‐Used in fresh and cooked dishes similarly to traditional spinach. Red and green varieties exist. Mucilaginous quality makes it good as a thickener in soups and stews. ‐Common crop production problems include tarnished plant bug.

Nappa cabbage / celery cabbage

Brassica campestris Pekinensis group var. cephalata

Cantonese: Siew choy, won bok Mandarin: Da bai cai, Huan ya bai

Hakusai Cai bac thao, cai dai

Baechu ‐ Oblong, headed type called "Nappa"; elongated, cylindrical types referred to as "Michihili" types. Used in salads, cole slaw, cooked and pickled dishes. ‐ Common crop production problems include cabbage maggot, flea beetles, clubroot, slugs, diamondback moth larvae, Alternaria spot, downy mildew, soft rot, virus diseases and nutrient deficiencies.

Potherb mustard

Brassica juncea var. japonica

Mandarin: Shui cai

Kyona, Mizuna

‐Used in salads, soups, steamed and stir‐fried dishes as well as in pickled preparations. ‐Common crop production problems include flea beetles and cabbage maggot.

Purple mint / beefsteak plant

Perilla frutescens, P. crispa

Mandarin: Zi su Shiso Tia to

Dulketip ‐Aromatic and distinctive herb used in salads and cooked dishes. Sprouts used as flavouring and as a garnish.

Asian radish

Raphanus sativum

Cantonese: Lo bok Mandarin: Luo bu

Daikon Cu cai Moo ‐Many shapes, sizes and colours grown. Usually cooked or pickled (Japanese takuan, tsukemono and Korean kimchi) but can also be used in salads. Foliage also makes a good edible green and is used in soups. ‐Common crop production problems include cabbage maggot, flea beetles, virus diseases, soft rot and Alternaria spot.

Red and Green Mustards

Brassica juncea var. rugosa, var. crispifolia

Cantonese: Gai choy Mandarin: Jie cai

: Karashina Cai xanh Gat ‐Several varieties are found in this group. A wide range of uses in salads, boiled, steamed and stir‐fried dishes. Can also be pickled. ‐Common crop production problems include flea beetles, cabbage maggot, clubroot, virus diseases and nutrient deficiencies.

Snow peas / snow pea shoots

Pisum sativum var. macrocarpon

Cantonese: Ho lan dow (peas); Dow miu (shoots) Mandarin: He lan do (peas); Dou miao (shoots)

Saya endo, tohbyo

Dau Hoa‐ lan

Wandokong (peas); Wandusaan (shoots)

‐Used in a variety of steamed and stir‐fried dishes. ‐Common crop production problems include weed control and root rot.

30

Water spinach

Ipomoea aquatica

Cantonese: Tung choy Mandarin: Kongxin cai

Kankon, Asagaona, Ensai

Rau muong Kongshimchae

‐Hollow‐stemmed green used in cooked and stir‐fried dishes. Often grown in summer greenhouses and under floating row covers in the field. ‐Common crop production problems include tarnished plant bug, grasshoppers, thrips, spider mites, aphids, fungal leaf blight and edema.

Thick petiole white Chinese leaf cabbage

Brassica campestris, Chinensis group var. communis

Cantonese: Bok choy Mandarin: Bai cai

Shakushina Cai thia, cai be trang

Bok choy

‐Entire plant can be used in stir‐fried, steamed dishes, soups and salads. ‐Common crop production problems include flea beetles, soft rot, downy mildew, white leaf spot, virus diseases and clubroot.

Thin petiole white Chinese leaf cabbage

Brassica campestris, Chinensis group var. communis

Cantonese: Pak choy Mandarin: Xiao bai cai

Shakushina; Chingensai (if green‐stemmed)

Cai thia; cai trang con

Pak choy

See bok choy.

Source: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/98‐033.htm

3.3.2Herbs,Spices&MedicinalPlantsHerbs, spices and medicinal plants have the potential to become economically important alternate crops for farm diversification in the county. Diversification is important as many farm operations have been affected by low market prices, which in turn have resulted in lower profits. There is a growing interest in herbs as alternate crops because of their high market value. Most of these herbs could have a niche markets in the county, region, province or international. A lot of research and development is needed to determine the suitability and feasibility of these herbs. Between 1998 and 2007, both quantity (up by 94.4%) and value (rose by 48.7%) of exports of medicinal plants in Canada increased; an indication of potential future growth for the industry. Herbs could be used for medicinal and culinary purposes or as spices. According to Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada, the term spice refers to any dried plant product used primarily for seasoning. It differs from culinary herbs, in that the parts of importance are the seed, bark, and flowers of plants, rather than the leaves. A medicinal plant is a plant that is either cultivated or wild crafted (collected from the wild) for its medicinal value. It has recently been estimated that there are about 400,000 species of vascular plants globally, with somewhere between a quarter and a third of these plants having been used for medicinal purposes by indigenous societies. Medicinal plants have a long history of use in Canada. Hundreds of species were used by the First Nations Canadians in traditional medicine, with the potential for many of these plants to be valuable in modern medicine (AAFC, Statistical Overview of Canada’s special Crops, 2009). The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) has plenty of information on the use, production, management, harvesting and marketing of non‐traditional crops such as herbs. Marketing opportunities exist, but need careful planning and research. According to OMAFRA, marketing opportunities of culinary herbs and spices for Ontario growers have traditionally been broken down into two broad categories, food retailing and foodservice. Ontario is home to over 12,000 food retailers including convenience stores, farm markets, roadside stands, grocery stores, warehouse clubs, drugstores, and internet websites selling food items. In addition, there are more than 30,000 foodservice outlets in

31

Ontario. These include among others, bakeries, caterers, cafés, vending trucks, chip trucks, home delivery services, hospitals, schools, prisons, and establishments run by contract caterers (including employee cafeterias). These outlets may be seasonal or year round. One way to reach some of these outlets is through the Ontario Food Terminal in Toronto (OMAFRA, Growing non‐traditional crops factsheet, agdev #268). There are some success stories of herb farming in Alberta, where a group of farmers formed a cooperative and supply herbs to the natural health product industry and/or companies that use culinary herbs, spices and medicinal plants. This is a cooperative of producers who are responsible for on‐farm production, harvest (as well as food safety/Good Agricultural Collection Practices) and dehydration (using cooperative dryers). The cooperative is responsible for further processing, storage/inventory, marketing, sales, shipping, invoicing, etc. They also share machinery and labour. To date, the companies the cooperative are supplying herbs to are looking for 400 species of herbs. The table below provides information on culinary herbs. Table3.6:CommonCulinaryHerbsandtheirUses

Culture Uses Characteristics Harvest

ANISE Pimpinella anisum

. . .

Seed; use fresh seed; likes sun; space 15‐20 cm (6‐8 inches) apart

Green leaves and seeds in salads; meats; bakery goods; tastes somewhat like licorice

Annual; slow‐growing; whitish flowers in flat clusters; finely cut lobed leaves; 60 cm (2 feet) tall

Use leaves fresh; harvest seeds when ripe, dry, remove from stems and store

BASIL, Sweet Ocimum basilicum

. . .

Seed; sow after ground is warm in spring; plant late; needs water and warmth, sun and shelter; 30 cm (12 inches) apart; pinch out tops of branches to prevent bloom ‐‐ this produces more leaves

Border plant for garden, or in pots for patios; chopped leaves fresh or dry have clove‐like flavour and taste; seasoning for vegetables and meat

Annual; deep‐green leaves; white blooms; many varieties available including small leaf (bush) and purple types; 30‐90 cm (12‐36 inches) high

Cut stalks back to 10‐15 cm (4‐6 inches) anytime in the growing season; can be frozen; strip leaves from stems and screen dry

BAY LAUREL Laurus nobilis

. . .

Seed or stem cuttings (slow and difficult to establish); best to buy established plants; full or diffused sun; grow in containers; well‐draining, rich soil; space 30‐90 cm (1‐3 feet) depending on size

Fresh or dried leaves in soups, stews, fines herbs blends

Tree or shrub; tender perennial; deep green, shiny, leathery leaves; grows up to 6 m (20 feet) in southern climates; can be keep small and bushy at under 1 m (3 feet)

Pick mature leaves; use fresh or screen dry; store whole

BORAGE Borago officinalis

. . .

Seed; sow early spring; will self‐sow; needs dry, sunny place; space 30‐45 cm (12‐18 inches) apart

Young leaves have cucumber flavour; use them in salads and cold soups; use fresh leaves in eggs; fresh flowers in fruit drinks and candied for dessert garnish

Bushy plant; coarse leaves; annual; grows 60‐90 cm (2‐3 feet) high; blue flowers

Pick blossoms as they open; pick leaves fresh

BURNET, Salad Poterium sanguisorba

. . .

Seed; full sun; dry, sandy soil; space 30 cm (12 inches) apart

Fresh leaves have mild cucumber flavour; for salads, soups, dressings, spreads and vinegars

Hardy perennial; 45 cm (18 inches) high Pick leaves as needed; remove flower stalks as they appear

CARAWAY Carum carvi

. . .

Seed; sow spring or fall; full sun, light soil; seeds produced second year; space 30‐45 cm (12‐18 inches) apart

Seeds used to flavour bread, pastry, meat, soups, sauces, confections

Biennial; feathery foliage; creamy flowers; resembles carrot; 60 cm (2 feet) tall

Dry seed heads; harvest seeds in autumn of second year

CHERVIL Anthriscus cerefolium

. . .

Seed; sow spring or fall; partial shade; rich organic soil; 45 cm (18 inches) apart

Leaves fresh or dried used as garnish for fish, in soups, omelettes; mix with salad greens

Annual; goes to seed in June; leaves are parsley‐like, ferny; 30‐60 cm (12‐24 inches) high

Leaves best used fresh; freezing is the best way to preserve

CHIVES Allium schoenoprasum

. . .

32

Division or seed; rich, moist soil; plant same as onions; divide clumps and pot for indoor use during winter

Clumps and blooms decorative in gardens; leaves used fresh or dried in salads and as seasonings; has onion flavour

Perennial; can be used the first season; resembles fine‐leaved onions; grows in clumps; violet edible flowers

Leaves best used fresh; holds flavour better frozen than dried; for drying cut into small pieces and screen dry

CORIANDER (Cilantro) Coriandrum sativum

. . .

Seed; start in spring; do not transplant; for cilantro leaf production, repeat sowings; space 10 cm (4 inches) apart; full sun, light soil

Seeds for spices in baking, dressings; tastes and smells like orange leaves in stuffings, curries; fresh leaves essential in Chinese and southeast Asian dishes, and in Mexican salsas

Annual; grows 60 cm (2 feet) tall Harvest seeds when and before shattering; flavour develops upon drying; leaves harvested before flowering, used fresh as cilantro

DILL Anethum graveolens

. . .

Seed; repeat sowings for summer long supply; sow early; needs rich soil; space 25 cm (10 inches) apart

Leaves for salads; fresh leaves and seed stalks for dill pickles; after drying use to season meats, fish, vegetables

Annual; 60‐90 cm (2‐3 feet) tall; feathery foliage; rampant grower

Leaves are best just as flowers open; harvest seeds as soon as ripe, cut off whole plant and hang to dry

FENNEL Foeniculum vulgare

. . .

Seed; best sown directly in garden; full sun; rich soil; space 45 cm (18 inches) apart

All parts of leaves, stems and seeds aromatic; used for fish seasonings and sauces; ornamental background plants for garden

Annual; tall, rampant, branching; thread‐like foliage to 1 m (3 feet)

Flower stalks harvested just before bloom; can be eaten like celery; leaves best fresh; dried seeds good for teas

GARLIC Allium sativum

. . .

Cloves planted early spring or fall; grows in any good garden soil; full sun; plant cloves 15 cm (6 inches) apart and 5 cm (2 inches) deep

Chopped cloves season meats, vegetable sauces; garlic salt obtained from pulverized dried cloves

Flat, onion‐like leaves to 60 cm (2 feet); prune flower stalk to increase yield; fall planting produces bigger cloves

Dig bulbs, dry whole; store in cool dry area

LAVENDER, English Lavandula angustifolia

. . .

Seeds or cuttings; sun and poor soil for fragrance; needs protection or take indoors if winters severe; space 60 cm (2 feet) apart

Fragrance; fresh and dried flowers; oil distilled from them; place dried flowers in small cloth bags for scenting closets; good border or hedge plants

Perennial; somewhat woody; 30‐60 cm (12‐24 inches); gray‐green leaves; many varieties available

Cut and dry whole flower spikes when flowers begin to open; do not use excessive or prolonged heat when drying flowers since oils are very volatile

LOVAGE Levisticum officinale

. . .

Seed or division; full or part sun; sandy, fertile soil; space 1 m (3 feet) apart

Leaves have strong celery flavour; for salads, soups, dried herb blends

Hardy perennial; one plant enough; deep green leaves; white flowers attract beneficial insects; grows up to 2 m (6 feet)

Pick leaves as needed; use fresh, freeze, or screen dry; to dry, mince leaves first

MARJORAM, Sweet Origanum majorana

. . .

Seed, cuttings, crown division; sow early inside or in coldframe; shade seedlings until established, then full sun; space 20‐25 cm (8‐10 inches); can be taken inside in winter as pot plant

Gray‐green foliage ornamental for colour contrast; leaves used fresh or dried as seasoning for meat dishes; oil used in perfumes

Annual or tender perennial; velvety leaves; very fragrant; low‐spreading and bushy to 30 cm (12 inches) high

Cut stalks before flowering; hang to dry in small bunches or screen dry

MINT Spearmint Mentha spicata Peppermint M. X piperita Orange mint M. X piperita citrata

. . .

Surface or underground rhizomes; thin beds and renew every 3‐4 years; will grow in semi‐shade; rich, moist soil; space 45 cm (18 inches) apart

Fragrance for scent; crushed leaves flavour tea, candies, mint sauce; oil from plant is source of menthol

Perennial; purple flowers; refreshing fragrance; spreads by surface runners; plant in tubs to keep roots restricted; up to 90 cm (3 feet) tall

Pick leaves individually from plants; can be used fresh or dried; harvest before flowering

OREGANO Origanum vulgare

. . .

Seeds or division; grows well in poor soil; does well in containers and as ground cover for banks; space 30‐45 cm (12‐18 inches) apart

Fresh or dried leaves as meat or vegetable seasoning; used in pizza

Perennial; soft, rounded leaves; grows in clumps 60 cm (2 feet) high

Cut stalks before flowering begins; hang to dry or dry on screens

33

PARSLEY Petroselinum crispum

. . .

Seed; sow early inside, self sows; medium‐rich soil; sun or part shade; best started in coldframes; space 15‐20 cm (6‐8 inches); start new plants each year

Decorative as an edging plant; rich in vitamins a and c; leaves best used fresh; seasoning for soup, meats, salads

Biennial; finely curled leaves; flowers second year; 20 cm (8 inches) high; compact plant; flat leaf varieties have strongest flavour

Best used fresh; both leaves and roots keep flavour when dried or frozen; first season of growth is best for use

ROSEMARY Rosmarinus officinalis

. . .

Stem cuttings; seed germinates slowly; overwinter in cool sunny spot in house; keep foliage misted; doesn’t like acid soil; needs full sun and wind shelter; space 1 m (3 feet) apart

Use ornamentally as specimen pot plant; use leaves fresh or dried as food seasoning, especially on poultry or lamb

Evergreen; narrow leaves; shrubby; not reliably hardy; leathery leaves have pungent spicy fragrance; reaches 1‐2 m (3‐6 feet) in southern climates

Cut leaves any time before flowering; don’t use excessive or prolonged heat when drying since oils are volatile; freezing is not recommended

SAGE, Garden Salvia officinalis

. . .

Seed, stem cuttings; cut back in spring for new foliage; needs well‐drained soil; space 75 cm (30 inches) apart in sun

Leaves used dried or fresh as poultry dressing and stuffing, or as meat seasoning

Gray, shrubby, perennial; blue flowers; woody; sprawly habit; to 45 cm (18 inches) tall

Cut leaves throughout growing season; strip leaves, screen dry or hang in small bunches

SAVORY, Summer Satureja hortensis

. . .

Seed; sow 30‐40 seeds per metre (10‐12 seeds per foot); do not thin; medium‐rich soil in sun; make several sowings 3 weeks apart; space 15 cm (6 inches)

Suitable as a border hedge 8 inches high; leaves used fresh or dried as seasoning in soups, egg dishes, sauces, especially with green beans

Annual; weak stems; mauve flowers; 40‐45 cm (16‐18 inches) high; leaves pungent and spicy

Cut stalks before flowering; hang to dry

SORREL, Garden Rumex acetosa

. . .

Seed or division; full sun; rich soil; space 45 cm (18 inches) apart

Tart, acid flavour; for soups, salads, sauces; rich in vitamin a and c

Heart‐shaped succulent leaves; hardy perennial; cut off flower stalks to promote leaf growth; 30‐60 cm (1‐2 feet) tall

Young leaves best; use fresh only; cut back to 5‐10 cm (2‐4 inches) throughout growing season ‐‐ will regrow; freezes well

TARRAGON, French Artemisia dracunculus sativa

. . .

Division of root crowns; need cold period each year (roots frozen) for continued growth; divide plants every 3 years; space 30 cm (12 inches) apart

Fresh or dried leaves in sauces and seafood; ingredients of tartar sauce; young leaves flavour vinegar, chicken dishes

Hardy perennial; doesn’t set seed; grows to 60 cm (2 feet); much branched; narrow, twisted leaves

Leaves are best used fresh; some flavour is lost on drying; can be frozen

THYME Thymus vulgaris

. . .

Stem cuttings, division; sow seed early; well‐drained, fertile soil; full sun; space 25 cm (10 inches) apart; cut back each spring; mulch over winter

Fragrant ground cover for rock garden; fresh or dried leaves usually blended with other herbs

Perennial; shrubby, woody stems; low‐growing, 15‐20 cm (6‐8 inches); leaves highly aromatic; can be potted and grown indoors in winter

Cut leafy tops before flowering; hang to dry or screen dry

VERBENA, Lemon Aloysia triphylla (Lippia citriodora)

. . .

Cuttings; tender woody shrub; take indoors in winter

Leaves for fragrance and to give lemon taste to beverages and jellies

Narrow, shiny leaves are lemon‐scented; non‐hardy perennial

Strip leaves individually from plant before blooms come out; dry on screens

Source: Richters Herbs, http://www.richters.com/show.cgi?page=InfoSheets/chart.html

34

3.4OpportunitiesinBio‐ProductsIndustries

3.4.1ABriefonBio‐ProductsThe bio‐products industry is a fast growing industry in Canada and Ontario. According to the 2003 development survey by Statistics Canada, there were 53 firms in the province engaged in the production of bio‐products, a majority of whom bio‐products were not their main products, but had several benefits. The benefits of bio‐products were cited as new products/market opportunities, environmental benefits, product performance and production costs (Bio‐products Development Survey 2003). The same survey found that Ontario was heavily involved in the use of agricultural crop biomass with over half of their inputs coming as by‐products. Bio‐products were important to the province with $871 million in bio‐products revenue in 2003, the highest in Canada. In Ontario, the percentage of bio‐products employees per firm was 50.7 percent, higher than the national rate at 32.5 percent and well above other provinces. Table 3.7 below provides some of the characteristics of bio‐products in Canada and the provinces.

Table3.7CharacteristicsofBio‐ProductsinCanadaandtheProvincesCategory/ Activity Canada Atlantic Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British

Columbia

Number of firms 232 15 72 53 9 18 27 38

% of Total firms 100 6.46 31.03 22.84 3.88 7.76 11.65 16.38

Average # of Bio‐products per firm 4.5 3.0 5.1 3.2 ‐ 4.9 5.4 4.5

Type of Biomass (%)

Agricultural crop biomass 40.3 40.7 35.2 51.5 100 44.7 37.1 23.9

Forestry biomass 33.2 59.0 28.3 24.4 ‐ 27.7 31 53.8

Animal manure 8.7 ‐ 8.5 4.4 0.0 28.8 4.6 10.1

Food processing products/by‐products

15.2 40.7 14.6 8.7 0.0 ‐ 16.6 21.4

Industrial organic waste 10.6 29.5 13.9 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7

Municipal waste 6.6 ‐ 7.9 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6

Marine & aquaculture materials/products

14.2 21.1 26.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 ‐ 21.1

Other biomass 15.5 0.0 14.5 24.2 0.0 21.2 22.8 7.3

Employment

Average number of employees per firm

105 262 83 77 108 157 96 100

Average number of bio‐products employees

34 15 35 39 32 12 40 39

% of Bio‐products employees by firm

32.5 5.8 41.7 50.7 29.5 7.7 41.6 39.4

Source: Compiled from Bio‐products Development survey analysis, David Sparling, John Cranfield, Spencer Hanson and Pamela Laughland, 2006

From the table above, it is evident that agriculture plays a major role in the production of bio‐products in the province. The use of agricultural biomass is increasing worldwide. Many communities with strong agricultural foundations like Brant County are good candidates for bio‐products production and development in many ways:

the cost of energy and transportation is rising and there is need to replace fossil fuels;

the increasing awareness of economic sustainability in many communities;

there are many developments in bio‐products research and innovations;

cost and waste reduction;

35

generating valuable by‐products and added value of many commodities;

protecting the environment;

rural economic development opportunities through investments in local industries;

funding opportunities from both federal and provincial governments;

the opportunities of using agriculture based biomass in several areas such as bio‐fuels/bio‐energy and bio‐chemicals;

the push for green economies in many communities; and

employment generation.

Although there are many sources of biomass that could be used to produce bio‐products, agriculture stands out because of its appeal for sustainability. A good number of the agricultural based biomass sources are renewable on an annual/seasonal basis compared to forest/wood or aquaculture based biomass sources. The table below provides a general overview of the sources of biomass and examples.

Table3.8:SourcesofBiomassSector Biomass Grouping Examples

Forestry

Logging residues Tops, branches, culls, slash, stumps

Environmental forestry From plantations, prunings, thinnings

Weed species, inferior trees, brush, scrub from stand improvement and clearings

Energy crops Fast growing species, harvested for energy such as hybrid poplars, willow

Urban forestry Prunings, thinnings, removals, landscaping by municipalities, utilities, developers

Farming, agriculture

Crop residues Stalks, straw, chaff, shells, stover, husks, branches

Energy crops Purpose grown crops; switch grass, Jerusalem artichoke, Kochia

Vegetable oils seeds for biodiesel; canola, soybean, mustard, flax

Sugar and starches for alcohols; sugar beets, corn, cereal grains

Distressed seeds unsuitable for food processing; all starches and oil seed crops

Animal manures Manures and bedding; cattle, pigs, chickens, fish, marine animals, etc. for Anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis or gasification

Dead stock Anaerobic digestion

Forest products industry wastes/residues

Pulp & paper Bark, screenings

Sludges

Wood Products industries Bark, sawdust, shavings, sander dust, culls, trim, ends, shorts

Food & beverage Industries

Crop processing Stalks, straw, chaff, shells, stover, husks, branches, etc., if delivered to the processor

Seeds, pits, cores, peels, shells, skins

Pulp, sludges, brine, wash water, chemicals, solvents, off gasses

Animal processing Offal, skins, bones, blood, fat, renderings, tallow, fur, feathers, shells, scales

Brine, wash water, solvents, off gasses

36

Table3.8:SourcesofBiomass(cont’d) Sector Biomass Grouping Examples

Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (ICI) wastes

Includes all of the forest and food products industries identified above

Construction and demolition wastes

Paper, plastics, furniture, food, manufacturing wastes, etc.

Municipal

Municipal Solid Wastes Household wastes

Municipal organic wastes Putricibles, food, gardening

Sewage Sewage, sewage sludge

Waste Activated Sludge

Special organisms

Algae, bacteria, E. Coli, micro‐organisms

Source: Sustainable Development Technology Canada’s SD Renewable Fuels – Biofuels, Business Case

3.4.2AgriculturalFeedstockintheCounty Brant County grows a variety of field crops and livestock that would be suitable for bio‐products production such as bio‐fuels/bio‐energy and bio‐chemicals. These include among others, starch grains, oilseeds, crop residue, vegetables, fruit and berries and livestock. The well established markets and processing facilities for these commodities in the county and the region, make most of them good candidates for bio‐products production. Corn, which is used in the production of ethanol, had 263 farms in 2006 and the county harvested 38,000 acres of corn in 2009. The county had over 18,000 acres in wheat production and 52,000 acres of soybeans in 2009. Barley, oats and rye are also good sources of biomass but, their production in the county is limited and some of them are used as animal feed. Therefore, there could be some limitations on these crops. Soybean is a significant crop to the county, with 52,000 in acres in 2009 and has numerous uses in the bio‐products and other industries. The use of soybeans in the production of biodiesel is increasing worldwide, including Canada. The county produces a large amount of hay (17,000 acres) that could be used as biomass but, competition from the livestock industry may pose a problem since the county has a sizeable number of livestock and surpluses may not be available. The potential for these commodities could be evaluated on the premise of their availability and cost effectiveness for the county. For ethanol and biodiesel, the yield from agricultural feedstock depends on the type of crop and yield per unit of land and method of extraction. Table below provides information on biofuel yield for different crops in selected countries/global.

37

Table3.9:BiofuelYieldsforDifferentFeedstockinSelectedCountriesCROP GLOBAL/

NATIONAL ESTIMATES BIOFUEL CROP YIELD CONVERSION

EFFICIENCY BIOFUEL YIELD

Food Agricultural Organization Estimates1 (Tonnes/ha) (Litres/tonne) (Litres/ha)

Sugar beet Global Ethanol 46.0 110 5 060

Sugar cane Global Ethanol 65.0 70 4 550

Cassava Global Ethanol 12.0 180 2 070

Maize/corn Global Ethanol 4.9 400 1 960

Rice Global Ethanol 4.2 430 1 806

Wheat Global Ethanol 2.8 340 952

Sorghum Global Ethanol 1.3 380 494

Sugar cane Brazil Ethanol 73.5 74.5 5 476

Sugar cane India Ethanol 60.7 74.5 4 522

Oil palm Malaysia Biodiesel 20.6 230 4 736

Oil palm Indonesia Biodiesel 17.8 230 4 092

Maize/corn United States of America Ethanol 9.4 399 3 751

Maize/corn China Ethanol 5.0 399 1 995

Cassava Brazil Ethanol 13.6 137 1 863

Cassava Nigeria Ethanol 10.8 137 1 480

Soybean United States of America Biodiesel 2.7 205 552

Soybean Brazil Biodiesel 2.4 205 491

CROP GLOBAL/ NATIONAL ESTIMATES

BIOFUEL ‐ CONVERSION EFFICIENCY litres/ton

BIOFUEL YIELD/ha

Estimates by Brown and World Watch Institute Wheat France2 Ethanol ‐ 389 2500Barley Global3 Ethanol ‐ 243 1100

Rapeseed Global3 Diesel ‐ 392 1200

Sunflower Global3 Diesel ‐ 418 1000

Groundnuts Global2 Diesel ‐ 308 842

Sources: 1. Food Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The State of Food and Agriculture, Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Opportunities (2008), Chapter 2, Section Biofuels and agriculture, p. 16 2. Brown L R 2006 Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble, L Starke (New York: W W Norton) p 352 and 3. Worldwatch Institute 2007 Biofuels for Transportation: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture and Energy in the 21st Century edition, T W Institute (Washington, DC: The Worldwatch Institute) p 480

38

Ethanol production is growing worldwide as you can see in table 3.10. Between 2007 and 2009, Canada increased its Ethanol production by 37.5 percent, compared to the US with an increase of 65.4 percent during the same period. Table3.10:AnnualFuelEthanolProductionbyCountry(2007–2009)World rank

Country/Region Top 10 countries/regional blocks (Millions of U.S. liquid gallons per year)

Absolute Change 2007‐2009 (million)

Gallons/yr)

Percentage Change (%)

2007 2008 2009 2007‐2009 2007‐2009

1 United States 6,498.60 9000.00 10750.00 4251.40 65.42

2 Brazil 5,943.87 7053.39 7264.73 1320.86 22.22

3 European Union 570.30 733.60 1039.52 469.22 82.28

4 China 486.00 501.90 541.55 55.55 11.43

5 Thailand 79.20 89.80 435.20 356.00 449.49

6 Canada 211.30 237.70 290.59 79.29 37.52

7 India 52.80 66.00 91.67 38.87 73.62

8 Colombia 74.90 79.30 83.21 8.31 11.09

9 Australia 26.40 26.40 56.80 30.40 115.15

10 Other 247.27 Sources: 1. F.O. Licht. "2007 and 2008 World Fuel Ethanol Production". Renewable Fuels Association. Archived from the original on 2008‐04‐08. http://web.archive.org/web/20080408091334/http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/. 2. "2009 Global Ethanol Production (Million Gallons)". F.O. Licht, cited in Renewable Fuels Association, Ethanol Industry Overlook 2010, pp. 2 and 22,

2010. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/‐/objects/pdf/outlook/RFAoutlook2010_fin.pdf?nocdn=1. Agricultural waste may provide a cheaper alternative to crops. Crop residues and animal waste could be a good source as they provide a cheaper source of biomass than actual commodities that demand market prices. Crop residues such as straws and stover (for corn and soybeans) have great potential since these are produced in large quantities in the county. They were more than 300 farms involved in livestock production in 2006. Livestock is a key component of the anaerobic digestion process. Anaerobic digestion could be a good energy source for farmers. They could use manure and animal fats to produce fuel on farms. Using manure and animal fats through anaerobic digestion can produce heat (biogas) or hydro to keep operating costs down. Anaerobic digestion is a series of processes in which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen, used for industrial or domestic purposes to manage waste and/or to release energy. Anaerobic digestion is widely used as a renewable energy source because the process produces a methane and carbon dioxide rich biogas suitable for energy production, helping to replace fossil fuels. The nutrient‐rich digestate which is also produced can be used as fertilizer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion).

39

Making energy from waste on the farm could save some energy and reduce costs. Commercial production may be challenging as inputs may not be scarce and transportation costs may be high. The county had over 13,400 head of cattle, 4,500 dairy cattle and 17,800 pigs in 2009. However, there are strict regulatory issues with the use of animal waste and competition from source farms that use animal manure to fertilize land may pose a supply problem. A summary table of potential agricultural biomass for the county and Southern Ontario is given in table 3.11 below.

Table3.11:CropandLivestockBiomassinBrantCounty

Source: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and Statistics Canada Agricultural Community Profiles, 2006 Census.

3.4.3ProcessingIndustriesBio‐products production would not be possible without the support industries that can provide services or by‐products. Organic waste from industrial activities (called industrial organics) such as spoiled food products and food waste/leftovers from institutions and restaurants, brewer’s grain and other by‐products and waste from food manufacturing may also provide some opportunities for bio‐products in the county. There are several companies that distribute, process and market agricultural commodities in the county. Brant County is home to 23 food processing companies and 351 eating places. Below is a table of support industries that could foster the development and production of bio‐products in the county.

Crop/Livestock –Biomass

Area (acres) Brant County

Area (acres) Southern Ontario

Farms Brant County Farms Southern Ontario

Grains

Wheat 18,000 (winter) 545,000 205 7,214

Corn 38,000 843,000 263 6,176

Barley 100 7,400 15 398

Oats 800 14,800 63 1,022

Rye 6,454 55,848 (2006) 97 969

Mixed grain ‐ 7,200 19 390

Oilseeds

Soybeans 52,000 1,315,000 317 9,200

Other Crops

Hay 17,000 370,000 79 1,986

Vegetables 4,917 112,732 (2006) 73 1,804

Fruit & berries 613 47,619 (2006) 35 1,659

Livestock

Cattle 13,450 299,850 212 4,277

Dairy 4,500 74,200 66 1,141

Pigs 17,800 1,242,000 34 1,180

40

Table3.12ProcessingandDistributionIndustriesinBrantCounty

Source: Canada Business Patterns Data, 2010

Brant County: NAICS/Food and Beverage Manufacturing Number of Businesses

Total Number of Companies

3111 ‐ Animal Food Manufacturing 2

3112 ‐ Grain and Oilseed Milling 1

3113 ‐ Sugar and Confectionery Product Manufacturing 2

3114 ‐ Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing 2

3115 ‐ Dairy Product Manufacturing 1

3116 ‐ Meat Product Manufacturing 6

3117 ‐ Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging 0

3118 ‐ Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing 8

3119 ‐ Other Food Manufacturing 1

Total 23

3121 ‐ Beverage Manufacturing 0

3122 ‐ Tobacco Manufacturing 1

Total 1

4451 ‐ Grocery Stores 72

4452 ‐ Specialty Food Stores 23

7221 ‐ Full‐Service Restaurants 104

7222 ‐ Limited‐Service Eating Places 125

7223 ‐ Special Food Services 27

Total 351

41

A lot of agricultural commodities can be used to produce various products. Soybean for example, has great potential in bio‐products and other industries. Every part of the crop can be used for something. Below are some of the products that have soybean ingredients in them. As you can see, it is fairly extensive.

Table3.13:SoyProductsandUses Soy Products and Uses Industrial

Protein Products (38%*) Soy Flour, Protein Concentrates and Isolates

Refined Oil (18%*)

Hull Products / Fibre (8%*)

Lecithin (0.5%*)

Fatty Acids (minor*)

Glycerol (minor*)

Adhesives Anti‐corrosion agents

Filter material Anti‐foam agents Soaps Chemicals

Plywood Anti‐static agents Peroxidase Anti‐spattering agents

Detergents Lubricants

Wallboard Caulking compounds

Cosmetics Oleochemicals Structured lipids

Particle board Soap Dispersion agents Structured lipids Antifreeze

Insecticides Shampoo Printing inks printing acids

Dry‐wall tape compound

Detergents Insecticides Cements

Textured paints Solvents Paints Explosives

Fermentation nutrients

Core oils Synthetic rubbers Cosmetics

Yeast carriers Lubricants Stabilizing agents

Linoleum backing Biodiesel Wetting agents

Antibiotics Hydraulic fluids Yeast

Paper coatings Waterproof cement

Fire‐fighting foams Disinfectants

Fire‐resistant coatings Electrical insulations

Asphalt emulsions Pesticides

Cleaning compounds Linoleum backing

Cosmetics Oiled fabrics

Printing inks Candles

Leather substitutes Cosmetics

Water‐based paints Crayons

Plastics Printing inks

Textiles Protective coatings

Plastics

Wallboard

Dust suppressants

Paint & Paint removers

Epoxys

Metal casting agents

Source: http://www.soy2020.ca/pdfs/Industrial‐Uses‐and‐Opportunities.pdf

42

Like in industrial products, soybean is used in many of our everyday foods and products as shown in the table below. Some of these could provide opportunities for added value for farmers.

Table3.14:SoyProductsandUsesinFoodSoy Products and Uses: Food

Refined oil (18%*) Concentrates and Isolates Lecithin (0.5%*) Whole Bean

Cooking oils Bakery ingredients Cooking oils Fresh green soybeans

Salad oils Alimentary pastes Salad oils Baked soybeans

Mayonnaise Beer and ales Mayonnaise Bean sprouts

Medicinals Noodles Medicinals Soy coffee

Pharmaceuticals Prepared meat products Pharmaceuticals Roasted soybeans

Sandwich spreads Meat analogs Sandwich spreads Soymilk

Shortenings Meat pumping solutions Shortenings Soy Sauce

Filled milks Breakfast cereals Filled milks Tofu

Coffee whiteners Prepared mixes Coffee whiteners Miso

Candy Food drinks Candy Natto

Chocolate coatings Baby foods Chocolate coatings Tempeh

Frying oils Hypo‐allergenic foods Frying oils Other Asian Soyfoods

Frozen deserts Candy products Frozen desserts Edamame

Cheese dips Sausage casings Cheese dips

Gravy mixes Yeast cultures Gravy mixes

Pastry fillings Imitation dairy products

Icings Flavourings

Whipped toppings Infant formula

Salad condiments

Hull Products / Fibre (8%*) Protein products (38%*) Full Fat Flour Nutraceuticals ‐ Pharmaceutical / health

Fibre Soy flour, protein Bread Isoflavones

Candy Saponins

Doughnut mix Phytic acid

Frozen desserts Protease inhibitors

Pancake flour

Pie crusts

Sweet goods

Sterols (minor*) Tocopherols (minor*) Low‐cost gruels

Pharmaceuticals Vitamin E Instant milk drinks

Antioxidants Crackers

Source: http://www.soy2020.ca/pdfs/Industrial‐Uses‐and‐Opportunities.pdf

3.4.4FunctionalFoodsandNutraceuticalsAccording to Health Canada (Section 2.2), a functional food is similar in appearance to, or may be, a conventional food that is consumed as part of a usual diet, and is demonstrated to have physiological benefits and/or reduce the risk of chronic disease beyond basic nutritional functions, i.e. they contain bioactive compounds. A nutraceutical is a product isolated or purified from foods that is generally sold in medicinal forms not usually associated with foods. A nutraceutical is demonstrated to have a physiological benefit or provide protection against chronic disease.

According to Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada (AAFC), functional foods and nutraceuticals provide an opportunity to improve the health of Canadians, reduce health care costs and support economic development in rural communities. They also offer a way for some producers to diversify their agriculture and marine‐based crops. According to market statistics, the global functional food and nutraceutical market is growing at a rate that is outpacing the traditional

43

processed food market. Canada has emerged as a leading world supplier in this growing market. The country has more than 300 companies ‐ from small start‐ups to multinational enterprises. Table below provides information on functional components, their sources and potential benefits.

Table3.15:ExamplesofFunctionalFoodComponents

Functional components Source Potential benefits

Carotenoids

Alpha‐carotene/Beta‐carotene Carrots, Fruits, Vegetables Neutralize free radicals, which may cause damage to cells.

Lutein Green vegetables Reduce the risk of macular degeneration.

Lycopene Tomato products (ketchup, sauces) Reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

Dietary Fibre

Insoluble Fibre Wheat Bran Reduce risk of breast or colon cancer.

Beta‐Glucan Oats, barley Reduce risk of cardiovascular disease. Protect against heart disease and some cancers; lower LDL and total cholesterol.

Soluble Fibre Psyllium Reduce risk of cardiovascular disease. Protect against heart disease and some cancers; lower LDL and total cholesterol.

Fatty Acids

Long chain omega‐3 Fatty Acids‐DHA/EPA Salmon and other fish oils Reduce risk of cardiovascular disease. Improve mental, visual functions.

Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) Cheese, meat products Improve body composition. Decrease risk of certain cancers.

Phenolics

Anthocyanidins Fruits Neutralize free radicals; reduce risk of cancer.

Catechins Tea Neutralize free radicals; reduce risk of cancer.

Flavonones Citrus Neutralize free radicals; reduce risk of cancer.

Flavones Fruits/vegetables Neutralize free radicals; reduce risk of cancer.

Lignans Flax, rye, vegetables Prevention of cancer, renal failure.

Tannins (proanthocyanidines) Cranberries, cranberry products, cocoa, chocolate

Improve urinary tract health. Reduce risk of cardiovascular disease.

Plant Sterols

Stanolester Corn, soy, wheat, wood oils Lower blood cholesterol levels by inhibiting cholesterol absorption.

Prebiotics/Probiotics

Fructo‐oligosaccharides (FOS) Jerusalem artichokes, shallots, onion powder

Improve quality of intestinal microflora; gastrointestinal health.

Lactobacillus Yogurt, Other dairy Improve quality of intestinal microflora; gastrointestinal health.

Soy Phytoestrogens

Isoflavones: Daidzein Genistein Soybeans and soy‐based foods

Menopause symptoms, such as hot flashes Protect against heart disease and some cancers; lower LDL and total cholesterol.

Source: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC‐AAC/display‐afficher.do?id=1171305207040

44

SectionIVMarketingArrangements,TrendsandAnalysis

4.0MarketingArrangementsMarketing arrangements are very important in agriculture. Easy access to well‐established markets can ensure a steady flow of income and also play a role in determining whether to stay in farming or not, depending on the conditions of the markets and prevailing prices. There are 21 marketing boards in Ontario. According to OMAFRA, about 60 percent of the value of all agricultural products produced by Ontario farms is marketed through 21 provincial marketing boards and three representative associations. The boards are governed by farmers who are elected by their fellow farmers and are responsible for co‐ordination of the marketing and selling their commodities. Their role in the marketing process is determined by each board’s marketing plan. Marketing plans vary in nature and change over time to meet the requirements of the buyers and producers and also adjust to market conditions. There are boards that just provide market information to their members and support activities in research and promotion. Others find markets for commodities or negotiate prices with buyers. Out of the 21 marketing boards, six manage the supply of commodities for the domestic market and, in some cases, the export market. Ontario marketing boards fall into three categories: negotiating boards, boards that have authority to set prices and those that regulate production and/or marketing through quotas. The negotiating boards negotiate minimum prices paid to farmers, terms and conditions for sale. Buyers contract with individual producers for specific volumes before the planting season. In this category, the boards do not have authority to limit production. The boards that have authority to establish prices paid to farmers use market information and discussions with buyers in setting prices. Set prices can be appealed to OMAFRA Appeal Tribunal. The boards that regulate production and marketing have authority to limit production through quotas. Quotas are determined through agreements with other provinces on estimated future national demand for the commodity and share the estimated production based on historical provincial share of the market. Prices paid to farmers are based on market information and negotiations with buyers. Below is a table of the marketing boards in Ontario.

Table4.1OntarioMarketingBoardsforAgriculturalCommoditiesandProducts Type of Board

Negotiating Boards Boards with the Authority to Establish Price

Boards that Regulate Production and/or Marketing Through Quotas

Ontario Apple Growers Ontario Asparagus Growers’ Marketing Board

Chicken Farmers of Ontario

Grape Growers of Ontario Ontario Bean Producers’ Marketing Board Dairy Farmers of Ontario

Ontario Potato Board Ontario Fresh Grape Growers’ Marketing Board

Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission

Seed Corn Growers of Ontario Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers Egg Farmers of Ontario

Ontario Soybean Growers Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board

Ontario Tomato Seedling Growers’ Marketing Board

Ontario Potato Board Turkey Farmers of Ontario

Processing Vegetable Growers Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency

Ontario Tender Fruit Producers’ Marketing Board

Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board

Source: Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs

45

Besides the marketing systems described above, the current trends in marketing of commodities, especially for fresh vegetables and fruits are moving towards local markets, in some cases community shared agriculture (especially for organic commodities/produce) and capturing added value opportunities. These trends have been fostered in part by changes in consumption patterns, local campaigns and advertising such as the 100 Mile Challenge, Buy Local Buy Fresh and Ontario Foodland. Besides local markets, international markets are just as important for some farmers and agri‐businesses as local markets. A big part of world economic growth comes from international trade. Therefore, the section below gives an overview of provincial and national agricultural trade and some of the emerging markets in agricultural commodities and products worldwide.

4.1ReviewofInternationalMarkets,TrendsandOpportunities

4.1.1OntarioandCanadaAgriculturalTrade Ontario exports and imports a lot of agricultural commodities and products that range from live animals to fur skins and from grains to baked goods. Data from 2001 to 2009 indicates that import bills for the province have been growing over the years and the trade balance continues to grow negatively as shown in the graph below.

Graph4.1OntarioAgri‐foodTrade2001‐09

Source: Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, Statistics Section

While exports have increased by 11.7 between 2001 and 2009, imports have also increased significantly by 44.7 percent, resulting in a 114.5 percent negative trade balance. Import values increased with most regions/countries, except Eastern Europe and Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea) whose values decreased by 53.4 and 12.8 percent, respectively, from 2001 to 2009. Ontario export values increased with almost all the major trading regions/countries except for Other Western Europe whose value dropped by 54.7% and the Caribbean value was down by 8.3% during the 2001 and 2009 period. A big proportion of the agri‐food trade is with the USA, which constituted 79.5 percent of the agri‐food total trade in 2009. Asia and European Union regions accounted for 7.5 and 4 percent respectively, of total agri‐food trade in 2009. Japan is the only country that had a positive trade balance with Ontario. Its value of exports rose by 5.5 percent during the 2001 and 2009 period. However, slight fluctuations occurred during this period, with 2006 recording the lowest trade balance between the two countries.

7,922,5178,852,815

11,663,891

16,878,916

‐3,741,374‐8,026,101

‐10,000,000

‐5,000,000

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Canadian $'000

Ontario Agri-Food Trade 2001-2009 (Cnd $'000)

Total Exports

Total Imports

Trade Balance

46

Graph4.2OntarioExportsbyRegion/Country‐PercentageDistribution

Source: Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, Statistics Section

Grains are one of the major export commodity groups for the province, reaching a $2 billion mark in 2009. The value of grain exports rose by 74.3 percent between 2001 and 2009. Percentage distribution or contribution for grains moved from 14.6 percent in 2001 to 22.8 percent of total agri‐food trade in 2009. The value of exports of oilseeds increased significantly over the years, shifting from a distribution of 1.7 percent of total agri‐food exports in 2001 to 5.2 percent in 2009.

Table4.2OntarioExportsbyCommodityGroup‐ChangeinTrade Commodity Group Difference

2001‐09 ($’000) Percentage Change

(%) Distribution 2001 Distribution 2009

Live animals ‐309,147 ‐53.4 7.3 3.0

Red meats 10,110 1.3 9.8 8.9

Fish and products ‐57,388 ‐46.0 1.6 0.8

Poultry and eggs 24,448 17.2 1.8 1.9

Dairy products ‐27,567 ‐16.8 2.1 1.5

Other animal products 72,927 22.0 4.2 4.6

Grains 1,387 2.5 0.7 0.6

Grain products 861,984 74.3 14.6 22.8

Oilseeds 325,229 238.5 1.7 5.2

Oilseed products 232,265 121.2 2.4 4.8

Animal feeds ‐118,456 ‐34.1 4.4 2.6

Fruit and nuts 35,186 40.4 1.1 1.4

Vegetables 267,982 41.2 8.2 10.4

Seeds for sowing 43,710 210.9 0.3 0.7

Vegetable fibres ‐5,980 ‐92.8 0.1 0.0

Floriculture and nursery products ‐129,980 ‐42.4 3.9 2.0

Tropical products (excl. fruit) ‐106,067 ‐22.3 6.0 4.2

Sugar and confectionery 41,181 6.9 7.6 7.2

Other edible preparations 265,369 50.0 6.7 9.0

Beverages ‐547,940 ‐51.5 13.4 5.8

Tobacco and products ‐18,492 ‐14.6 1.6 1.2

Other agri‐food products 69,535 147.9 0.6 1.3

Total 930,298 11.7 100.0 100.0

Source: Calculations based on data from Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, Statistics Section

United States79.5%

Mexico1%

Latin America (excl. Mexico)‐1%

Caribbean‐1%

EU4%

Other West Europe0%

Eastern Europe1%

Middle East2% Africa

‐1%Japan3%

Asia (excl. Japan)8%

Oceania1%

Ontario Exports by Region/Country: Percentage Distribution (%) 2009

47

The value of exports of beverages declined over the years, from over a billion dollars in 2001 to slightly over half a billion in 2009, registering a 51.5 percent decrease over this period. As a result, its percentage distribution moved from 13.4 percent of total value of agri‐food exports in 2001 to 5.8 percent in 2009. Among the major declines recorded in agri‐food trade were dairy products (down by 16.8%) and live animals (down by 53.4%, mainly due to restrictions of animal movements in the USA).

Table4.3:OntarioImports‐ChangeinTrade2001‐2009

Source: Calculations based on Data from Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, Statistics Section

Declines in value of exports may sometimes translate into increased import Values. This was true for beverages, animal feeds and tobacco and tobacco products; the decline in export values led to increased import values. Despite the increase in exports of grain products (up by 74.3%) and oilseed products (rose by 121.2%), imports of these commodities increased significantly by 75.8 and 113.7 percent respectively, during the 2001 and 2009. This is an indication of a gap in supply and demand and opportunities for local farmers to step up production to meet local demand.

Ontario still imports a lot of red meats. The value of imports reached over a billion dollar mark from 2007 onwards, while exports stayed just over half a billion dollar level. Major imports for the province include fruit and nuts, red meats, grain products, edible preparations, tropical products and beverages. Most of these could be produced within the province. Significant negative trade balances exist in a number of commodities and products such as beverages, tropical products (excluding fruits), red meats, animal feed and other edible preparations. Positive trade balances in live animals, other animal products and grain products were recorded throughout the 2001 and 2009 period. Table 4.4 provides more information.

Commodity Group Difference 2001‐09 ($’000)


Distribution 2001 Distribution 2009

Live animals ‐22,982 ‐28.8 0.7 0.3

Red meats 549,599 73.6 6.4 7.7

Fish and products 162,450 27.2 5.1 4.5

Poultry and eggs 130,813 32.1 3.5 3.2

Dairy products ‐117,834 ‐35.3 2.9 1.3

Other animal products ‐26,221 ‐10.2 2.2 1.4

Grains 46,538 14.0 2.9 2.3

Grain products 702,059 75.8 7.9 9.6

Oilseeds ‐69,236 ‐22.8 2.6 1.4

Oilseed products 370,636 113.7 2.8 4.1

Animal feeds 151,696 33.4 3.9 3.6

Fruit and nuts 932,294 56.3 14.2 15.3

Vegetables 496,544 38.2 11.2 10.6

Seeds for sowing 39,559 23.3 1.5 1.2

Vegetable fibres ‐88,843 ‐90.4 0.8 0.1

Floriculture and nursery products ‐3,446 ‐1.7 1.7 1.2

Tropical products (excl. fruit) 444,920 57.8 6.6 7.2

Sugar and confectionery 3,993 0.5 6.5 4.5

Other edible preparations 703,863 76.9 7.8 9.6

Beverages 734,859 81.5 7.7 9.7

Tobacco and products 34,204 75.1 0.4 0.5

Other agri‐food products 39,558 45.2 0.8 0.8

Total 5,215,025 44.7 100.0 100.0

48

Table4.4:OntarioTradeBalance‐AbsoluteandPercentageChange2001‐2009Commodity Group Difference

2001‐09 ($’000) Percentage Change

(%) Distribution 2001 Distribution 2009

Live animals ‐286,164 ‐57.4 ‐13.3 ‐2.6

Red meats ‐539,489 ‐1720.6 ‐0.8 6.3

Fish and products ‐219,839 46.6 12.6 8.6

Poultry and eggs ‐106,365 39.9 7.1 4.6

Dairy products 90,268 ‐53.1 4.5 1.0

Other animal products 99,148 131.4 ‐2.0 ‐2.2

Grains ‐45,151 16.2 7.4 4.0

Grain products 159,925 68.6 ‐6.2 ‐4.9

Oilseeds 394,467 ‐236.1 4.5 ‐2.8

Oilseed products ‐138,371 102.8 3.6 3.4

Animal feeds ‐270,152 254.4 2.8 4.7

Fruit and nuts ‐897,109 57.2 41.9 30.7

Vegetables ‐228,562 35.1 17.4 11.0

Seeds for sowing 4,150 ‐2.8 4.0 1.8

Vegetable fibres 82,863 ‐90.2 2.5 0.1

Floriculture and nursery products ‐126,533 ‐116.3 ‐2.9 0.2

Tropical products (excl. fruit) ‐550,987 186.9 7.9 10.5

Sugar and confectionery 37,188 ‐23.5 4.2 1.5

Other edible preparations ‐438,494 113.9 10.3 10.3

Beverages ‐1,282,799 ‐791.2 ‐4.3 14.0

Tobacco and products ‐52,697 ‐64.8 ‐2.2 ‐0.4

Other agri‐food products 29,976 ‐74.0 1.1 0.1

Total ‐4,284,727 114.5 100.0 100.0

Calculations based on data from Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, Statistics Section

4.1.2EmergingMarketsforSelectedCommoditiesThere are several emerging markets in world trade in many commodities. These are markets that have shown significant growth in imports on the world market by individual countries over the last few years due to growth in demand. These are potential markets which farmers or agri‐businesses could take advantage of.

EmergingMarketsforHorticulturalProducts In 2008, Canada’s top 10 export destinations for horticultural products included the U.S. (84.3%), Japan (2.7%), UK (1.2%), Germany, France, Mexico, Netherlands, China, Venezuela, and Taiwan. Ontario contributed 38 percent of Canada’s horticultural cash farm receipts in 2008. Quebec was second with 19 percent (AAFC). Emerging markets for horticultural products and Canada’s import market share are given in table 4.5 below.

49

Table4.5:SelectEmergingMarketsforHorticulturalProducts Country 2004‐2008 World Import

Growth (%) 2008 Market Size (million $) 2008 Canadian Import Market Share (%)

Russia 1004% 7,221 0.2%

Belgium 244% 7,175 0.9%

Italy 83% 5,479 4%

Spain 149% 3,977 2%

Poland 795% 2,406 0.2%

Switzerland 174% 2,266 1%

Denmark 347% 1,962 2%

Hong Kong 114% 1,885 1.3%

South Korea 315% 1,276 1%

Singapore 319% 830 0.6%

Source: Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada, Global Trade Atlas and http://www.trademap.org

EmergingMarketsforFloricultureandNurseryProductsThe market for floriculture and nursery is growing worldwide, with UK and France being the top two in terms of value of imports in 2008. Canada's 2008 top export destinations for floriculture and nursery products were the U.S., the Netherlands and Panama. In terms of value, Ontario produced 50 percent of Canada’s total cash receipts of floriculture and nursery in 2008 (AAFC, Statistical overview of Canada’s Horticultural crops, 2008). The table below shows emerging markets for floriculture and nursery products and Canada’s import market share. Table4.6:EmergingMarketsforFloricultureandNursery(basedon2008marketsize)

Country 2004‐2008 World Import Growth (%) 2008 Market Size (million US $)

2008 Canadian Import Market Share (%)

United Kingdom 14% 1,768 0.00%

France 31% 1,708 0.00%

Russia 312% 755 0.00%

Italy 16% 714 0.00%

Belgium 40% 618 0.20%

Switzerland 27% 570 0.00%

Japan 16% 536 0.00%

Sweden 33% 440 0.00%

Denmark 55% 397 0.00%

Source: Global Trade Atlas and http://www.trademap.org

EmergingMarketsforFruitProductsWorld imports in fruit products are increasing and some of the emerging markets are listed in table 4.7 below. Russia and Poland have increased the value of their imports by more than 100 percent over the last few years. These are potential markets for farmers in the region/province since Canada trades with these counties. The market for fruit products worldwide is expected to increase over the years, as more people engage in health eating habits. In 2008, Canada’s top ten export destinations for fruit products were the U.S. (75.7%), Japan (3.7%), UK (3.1%), Netherlands, Germany, France, China, Belgium, Taiwan and Australia.

50

Table4.7EmergingMarketsforFruitProductsCountry 2004‐2008 World Import

Growth (%) 2008 Market Size (million USD $) 2008 Canadian Import Market Share (%)

Russia 186% 4,472 0%

Italy 34% 2,848 0.10%

Spain 43% 2,143 0.40%

Hong Kong 67% 1,543 0.10%

Poland 105% 1,454 0%

China 100% 1,237 0.50%

India 91% 1,133 0%

Sweden 40% 1,072 0%

Switzerland 42% 1,040 0%

Singapore 32% 410 0.20%


EmergingMarketsforVegetableProductsOntario contributed 44 percent of Canada’s vegetable farm cash receipts in 2008, followed by Québec and British Columbia with 26 and 19 percent, respectively. In 2008, Canada’s top 10 export destinations for vegetable products included the U.S. (95.4%), UK (0.7%), Japan (0.6%), France, Mexico, Trinidad‐Tobago, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands and Germany. Emerging markets such as United Arab Emirates, Russia and India have more than doubled their import values between 2004 and 2008 as shown in table 4.8 below. Table4.8:SelectEmergingMarketsforVegetableProducts Country 2004‐2008 World Import

Growth (%) 2008 Market Size (million USD $)


Belgium 55% 1,825 0.5%

Russia 279% 1,764 0.2%

Italy 28% 1,660 3%

India 205% 1,445 39%

Spain 17% 1,254 2%

United Arab Emirates 429% 726 10%

Austria 40% 673 0%

Poland 176% 543 0.1%

South Korea 70% 535 0.4%

Ireland 70% 377 0%


EmergingMarketsforPotatoProductsOntario contributed 9.5 percent of Canada’s potato farm cash receipts and 7.4 of potato production in 2008. Canada’s top 10 export destinations for potato products in 2008 included the U.S. (81.2%), Japan, Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, South Korea, China, the Philippines and Guatemala. Emerging markets for potatoes and potato products are given in table 4.9 below. These are markets that have recorded rapid growth in imports in potatoes and potato products over the last few years due increased domestic demand. Canadians also increased their potato consumption in 2009, the first increase since 2001. These are indications of potential future growth for the commodity that farmers could take advantage of.

51

Table4.9:SelectEmergingMarketsforPotatoesandPotatoProducts Country 2004‐2008 World Import

Growth (%) 2008 Market Size (million USD $)


Netherlands 28% 2,065 0%

Belgium 65% 1,242 0%

United States 282% 1,106 82%

France 37% 955 0.1

Germany 46% 637 0%

United Kingdom 50% 282 2%

Egypt 89% 208 0%

Spain 52% 166 0.1%

Poland 59% 141 1%

Denmark 18% 53 0%


EmergingMarketsforMapleProductsOntario was the second largest producer of maple products in 2008. The number one producer in terms of quantity and value was Quebec. Top 10 export destinations for Canadian maple products in 2008 were the U.S. (67.8%), Japan (10.8%), German (6.8%), UK (4.4%), France, Australia, Denmark, Switzerland, Netherlands and South Korea. Emerging markets for maple products are given in table 4.10 below. In terms of value, UK was the number one maple importer in 2008, followed by France, Denmark and Australia. Table4.10:EmergingMarketsforMapleProductsCountry 2004‐2008 World Import

Growth (%) 2008 Market Size (million US $)

2008 Canadian Imports Market Share (%)

United Kingdom 69% 11 87%

France 117% 8 75%

Denmark 19% 5 81%

Australia 152% 5 92%

Spain 20% 3 4%

Netherland 6% 3 88%

Switzerland 127% 3 75%

Austria 186% 3 11%

Italy 54% 1 40%

Poland 592% 1 43%


4.1.2.7EmergingMarketsforHoneyProductsOntario produced about 8.6 percent of Canada’s honey production in 2008, down from 11.2 percent in 2005. It is the fourth largest producer of honey in Canada. Top export destinations for honey in 2008 were United States (78.7%), Japan (7.3%), Australia (6.6%) and Germany (3.4%). Emerging world markets for honey are listed in table 4.11 below.

52

Table4.11:EmergingMarketsforHoneyCountry 2004‐2008 World Import Growth

(%) 2008 Market Size (million US $)

2008 Canadian Imports Market Share (%)

Germany 7% 247 0.9%

France 64% 93 0.2%

Italy 4% 44 0.0%

Belgium 93% 42 0.0%

Spain 26% 39 0.0%

Netherland 17% 29 0.0%

Switzerland 17% 27 0.8%

Austria 36% 20 0.0%

Denmark 43% 18 0.0%

Poland 113% 12 0.0%


EmergingMarketsforCereals/GrainsWorld imports for grains or cereal grains (wheat, corn, rye, barley, oats and sorghum) grew by 69.3 percent between 2005 and 2009, with top importers being Japan, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Iran, Republic of Korea, Spain, Germany, Algeria and Netherlands. Most of the countries listed in table 4.12 below are Canada’s major trading partners, hence potential markets for the province/region. Table4.12EmergingMarketsforCereals/Grains(inUS$’000) World/Country

Imported value in 2005 (US$’000)

Imported value in 2009

Import Growth 2005‐2009

Percentage (%) Market Share 2009

World 4708995 83562384 69.3 100

Japan 1822664 6581784 39.8 7.9

Saudi Arabia 1864088 3382928 85.6 4.0

Mexico 960497 3029253 62.5 3.6

Iran (Islamic Republic of) 1957308 2906372 202.6 3.5

Republic of Korea 2399699 2870597 46.7 3.4

Spain 1659328 2834727 18.1 3.4

Italy 1034568 2598545 56.6 3.1

Germany 4708995 2496887 141.3 3.0

Algeria 1427112 2313554 62.1 2.8

Netherlands 1205758 2282066 89.3 2.7

Source: Calculations based on data from Trade Map, http://www.trademap.org/tradestat

OntarioGinsengExportsAccording to Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada (AAFC), the world's main North American Ginseng (NAG) growing regions are the Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, Wisconsin in the U.S., and the north‐eastern and northern regions of China. Canada is currently the largest producer of NAG in North America, of which about 90 percent is produced in the Simcoe area of Ontario. Canadian NAG is unequalled in quality, taste and aroma. North American ginseng

has a special place in the history of Canada. The roots have been used in traditional Aboriginal medicines for centuries. Ginseng is cultivated for its root and is one of the most widely used medicinal herbs in the world, especially in Asia. Both value and quantity of exports have been fluctuating over the years, but with an upward trend. The highest export peak for both value and quantity was in 2007 at $84 million and 2.5 million kilograms, respectively. Top destinations for Canada’s ginseng exports include Hong Kong, China, US, Singapore and Guatemala. See Graph 4.3 and table 4.13 for more details.

53

Graph4.3OntarioGinsengExports1997‐2008

Source: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/trade/ginseng.htm

Table4.13Canada’sTopDestinationsforGinsengRootsCountry Canadian Exports (million $)1

Canadian % Share of Import Market (Value)2

2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009

Hong Kong 71.7 84.9 62.2 87.9 45% 40% 56% 36%

China 1.4 1.5 3.9 3.6 20% 44% 62% 28%

United States 8.6 2.0 2.0 1.7 27% 7% 11% 9%

Singapore 0.8 0.5 0.6 1.0 21% 12% 24% 23%

Guatemala 0.5 2.2 0.9 0.0 0% 82% 97% 0%

Other 1.0 0.5 0.6 1.0

Total Value 84 91.7 70.2 95.3

Source: 1. AAFC ‐ Statistics Canada, March 2010 and 2. Global Trade Atlas, March 2010. "Canadian % share of import market" represents share of Canadian export in the importing country.

CanadianExportsHerbs,SpicesandMedicinalPlantsCanada’s exports of herbs, spices and medicinal plants have been increasing over the years. However, its contribution to the world export market has been marginal, only 1 percentage of world total export trade in 2009. Top export destinations in 2009 were the U.S., Germany, Jamaica, China and Czech Republic. See table 4.14 and graph 4.4 for more details.

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Value in

Can

$

Quantity in Kg.

Ontario Ginseng Exports 1997‐2008

Quantity (kg) Value ($)

54

Graph4.4:Canada'sShareofWorldExportsofHerbs,SpicesandMedicinalPlants2009

Source: AAFC‐ Global Trade Atlas, March 2010.

Table4.14:Canada'sTopDestinationsforHerbs,Spices&MedicinalPlantsCountry Canadian Exports (million $)1

Canadian % Share of Import Market (Value)2

2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009

United States 5.9 7.2 10.3 11.6 1% 1% 2% 2%

United Kingdom 2.4 1.0 1.9 0.5 1% 1% 0% 0%

Germany 0.5 0.6 1.8 1.0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Jamaica 1.6 0.9 1.6 1.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

China 2.5 0.8 1.5 0.0 3% 1% 3% 0%

Czech Republic 2.0 1.1 1.1 4.0 10% 6% 9% 12%

Barbados 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.9 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Netherlands 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.6 0% 0% 1% 0%

Trinidad‐Tobago 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Japan 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.3 0% 0% 0% 0%

Other 2.6 3.4 2.3 3.7

TOTAL VALUE 20.9 17.9 23.6 23.7

Source: 1. AAFC ‐ Statistics Canada, March 2010 and 2. Global Trade Atlas, March 2010. "Canadian % share of import market" represents share of Canadian export in the importing country.

Between 1998 and 2007, both quantity (up by 94.4%) and value (rose by 48.7%) of medicinal plant exports in Canada increased; an indication of potential future growth for the industry. The trend however, showed a cyclical price (value) pattern during this period. Import quantities exhibited minor fluctuations, but with an increasing trend. The value of imports also recorded some fluctuations and took a sharp decline (‐13.4%) between 2006 and 2007. See graphs 4.6 and 4.7 for more information.

Guatemala10%

China26%

Singapore4%

Netherlands6%

Canada1%

Germany7%

Other46%

Canada's Share of World Exports of Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Plants ‐ 2009

55

Graph4.5:CanadaMedicinalPlantImportsandExports

Source: Statistics Canada, May 2008

Graph4.6CanadianMedicinalPlantExportsdestinations‐2007

Source: Statistics Canada, 2008

4.4ConsumptionPatternsAs farmers struggle to make profits, most of what is grown today is influenced by among other things, commodity prices, consumption patterns, added value opportunities, availability and easy access to markets (traditional or niche). Consumption patterns change over time and most recently have been influenced by nutrition, health and environmental attributes. According to Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada (AAFC), the historical and well sustained trends in consumer behaviour are value (quality), convenience (pre‐packaged, fully cooked foods) and health (nutritional value and health attributes). However, there are also a number of trends that do not have historical track records, such authenticity (increased awareness of food and environmental issues) and sustainability (ensuring sustainable future, such as local farmers market, food miles, buy local buy fresh) that some consumers take into consideration. The Canadian diet is also changing and farmers and food processors alike have to follow consumption trends.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

0

2

4

6

8

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quan

tity (in '000 tonnes)

Value (in Cdn $' 000)

Canada:MedicinalPlantImportsandExports1998‐ 2007

Imports Quantity ('000) Exports Quantity ('000)

Imports value (Can $ '000) Exports value (Can $ '000)

Hong Kong75%

United States3%

China7%

Czech Republic5%

United Kingdom3%

Other7%

Canadian Medicinal Plant Exports ‐2007

56

Food Statistics by Statistics Canada indicate that on a per capita basis:

The Canadian diet in 2009 included more fresh fruit and vegetables, cereals, coffee and fish compared with 2008.

The amount of potatoes in the diet, regardless of how they were consumed, rose by 1.4% to 27.9 kg per person in 2009, the first increase since 2001.

The intake of poultry in the diet fell by 1.2% to 13.4 kg per person, similar to levels in 2006 and 2007.

Canadians consumed 16.0 kg per person of dairy products, down 3.5% from 2008.

Per capita red meat available for consumption continued its decline in 2009, falling by 0.7% to 23.4 kg per person per year.

Historical data also reveal declining consumption trends in certain commodities. Pork and beef per capita disappearance have been on the decline over the years, as shown in graph below. The data suggests that expansion of these industries will have to come from either new products or uses and international markets. The pork industry has been experiencing cash flow problems over the last three years, mainly due to low prices caused by large stocks of pork in North America and low demand as a result of the recession. However, the industry has recently expanded into new markets such as China, South Korea and Taiwan and a supply management model for production is being considered in order to strike a balance between supply and demand. Canadian exports of pork have also been hurt by the rising of the Canadian dollar in relation to the US dollar. Canadian exports are now more expensive compared the US. The US is a major producer and exporter of pork.

Graph4.7:PerCapitaDisappearanceofPorkandBeefinCanada

Source: Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada: “The Canadian Red meat Industry”, Red meat market information, 2009.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2008

2005

2006

2007

2008Per Cap

ita (retail basis –Kg.)

Canada: Beef and Pork Per Capita Disappearance (retail basis Kg.) 1980‐2008

Per Capita Pork Disappearance (retail basis –Kg.) Per Capita Beef Disappearance(retail basis –Kg.)

57

The consumption of fruits in Canada has increased over the years. Fruits that consumers believe have significant health benefits or attributes such as blueberries, other berries, pineapples, cherries, cranberries and melons have recorded significant increases over the last few years.

Table4.15:ConsumptionofFruitsinCanada(kgperperson)

Fruit 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percentage Change 2004‐

2008

Apples 6.48 7.09 7.34 6.9 6.85 6%

Apricots 0.11 0.1 0.07 0.11 0.11 0%

Avocados 0.3 0.28 0.34 0.35 0.38 27%

Bananas 6.34 6.38 6.43 6.55 6.55 3%

Berries other 0.2 0.18 0.26 0.36 0.47 135%

Blueberries 0.37 0.53 0.51 0.64 0.73 97%

Cherries 0.31 0.35 0.44 0.52 0.51 65%

Coconut 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.24 4%

Cranberries 0.49 0.48 0.63 0.56 0.75 53%

Dates 0.69 0.81 0.95 0.99 0.81 17%

Figs 0.29 0.33 0.34 0.26 0.25 ‐14%

Grapefruits 0.54 0.48 0.5 0.57 0.53 ‐2%

Grapes 3.26 3.53 3.31 3.47 3.57 10%

Guavas, Mangoes 0.59 0.52 0.58 0.64 0.58 ‐2%

Kiwis 0.29 0.32 0.33 0.36 0.36 24%

Lemons 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.44 0.43 ‐2%

Limes 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.3 0.31 29%

Mandarins 1.4 1.57 1.62 1.75 1.74 24%

Melons total 3.98 3.83 4 4.02 3.79 ‐5%

Muskmelons, Cantaloupes 1.02 1.12 1.09 1.13 1.05 3%

Nectarines 0.5 0.45 0.38 0.41 0.46 ‐8%

Oranges 4.81 5.1 4.9 4.43 4.88 1%

Other citrus 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 ‐33%

Other melons 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.16 0.19 58%

Papayas 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.17 21%

Peaches 0.59 0.54 0.57 0.67 0.62 5%

Pears 1.44 1.44 1.57 1.61 1.43 ‐1%

Pineapples 0.77 0.9 1.11 1.08 1.08 40%

Plums 0.55 0.6 0.53 0.54 0.55 0%

Strawberries 1.63 1.8 1.97 2.02 2.02 24%

Unspecified fresh fruits 0.34 0.27 0.29 0.36 0.32 ‐6%

Watermelons 2.25 1.93 2.07 2.1 2.01 ‐11%

Winter Melons 0.58 0.63 0.64 0.63 0.54 ‐7%

Total fresh fruits 35.94 37.49 38.54 38.63 38.75 8%

Source: Statistics Canada (21‐020‐X)

58

Collectively, the consumption of fresh vegetables in Canada dropped by 5 percent between 2004 and 2008. There were declines in traditional vegetables such as spinach, tomatoes, green beans, cabbage, carrots and lettuce. Canadians ate more pepper, asparagus, Chinese cabbage, mushrooms, garlic, cauliflower and edible roots between 2004 and 2008.

Table4.16:ConsumptionofFreshVegetablesinCanada(kgperperson)‐2004‐2008Vegetables 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2004‐2008

Artichokes 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 100%

Asparagus 0.17 0.2 0.22 0.22 0.24 41%

Beans green and wax 0.71 0.55 0.65 0.6 0.57 ‐20%

Beets 0.2 0.19 0.29 0.23 0.2 0%

Broccoli 1.35 1.32 1.28 1.33 1.24 ‐8%

Brussels sprouts 0.1 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.1 0%

Cabbage 2.92 2.71 2.75 2.81 2.47 ‐15%

Carrots 4.29 5.21 4.16 4.42 3.77 ‐12%

Cauliflower 0.57 0.62 0.62 0.57 0.64 12%

Celery 2.38 2.2 2.12 2.23 2.05 ‐14%

Chinese cabbage 0.38 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.45 18%

Corn 0.75 0.77 0.76 0.63 0.72 ‐4%

Cucumbers 1.8 2.12 2.71 2.01 1.84 2%

Eggplants 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 9%

Garlic 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.28 0.27 17%

Kohlrabi 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 30%

Leeks 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 8%

Lettuce 6.31 6.38 6.08 5.77 5.58 ‐12%

Manioc 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0%

Mushrooms 0.92 0.89 0.96 0.93 1.02 11%

Okra 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 ‐17%

Onions and shallots 3.76 4.3 4.47 4.3 3.73 ‐1%

Other edible roots 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.22 0.22 57%

Parsley 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 8%

Parsnips 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.06 0%

Peas 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.18 0.17 13%

Peppers 2.05 2.3 2.45 2.37 2.37 16%

Potatoes sweet fresh 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.33 0.37 9%

Potatoes white fresh and processed 29.99 29.5 28.58 28.21 28.55 ‐5%

Pumpkins and squash 1.27 1.31 1.42 1.37 1.38 9%

Radishes 0.35 0.31 0.36 0.36 0.35 0%

Rappini 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.1 0.09 13%

Rutabagas and turnips 0.55 0.69 0.48 0.59 0.51 ‐7%

Spinach 0.41 0.32 0.27 0.28 0.3 ‐27%

Tomatoes 4.97 4.78 4.74 4.93 4.54 ‐9%

Unspecified 0.66 0.72 0.68 0.66 0.36 ‐45%

Total fresh vegetables 68.17 69.13 67.94 66.82 64.47 ‐5%

Source: Statistics Canada (21‐020‐X)

59

SectionVTrendsinBusinessPatternsandLabour

5.0TrendsinNumberofBusinessesThere were 6,830 registered businesses in the county in 2010, of which 50 percent were classified as indeterminate.1 A total of 24.3 percent of businesses had 1 to 4 employees, while the number of employers with 5 to 9 employees represented 10.8 percent of total businesses in 2010. Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) accounted for 98.5 per cent of the total registered businesses in 2010, in comparison to large businesses that represented only 1.5 percent of the total. There were only 7 companies with 500 employees and over, down by one company or 12.5 percent from 2008. These accounted for only one tenth of a percentage point of total registered businesses in 2010.

Graph5.1DistributionofRegisteredBusinesses

Calculations based on Canada Business Patterns Data, 2008‐2010

1. According to Industry Canada, the "indeterminate" category consists of incorporated or unincorporated businesses that do not have a Canada Revenue Agency payroll deductions account. The workforce of such businesses may consist of contract workers, family members and/or owners.

Overall, the total number of businesses in the county dropped by 6.3 percent (or down by 461 businesses) between 2008 and 2010 and most of the decrease came from indeterminate businesses which recorded a loss of 312 businesses (or an 8.3% drop). That translates into a 67.7 percent of the total businesses the county lost between 2008 and 2010. About 452 of businesses were lost under the Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) category, accounting for 98 percent of the total number of businesses lost in the county in 2010. Only 9 businesses were lost under the large business category, representing about 2 percent of total business losses. Overall, all employee size categories experienced declines of varying percentage rates, the highest was 24 percent under businesses with employees between 200 and 499. With large decreases in number of businesses under small and medium enterprises, especially those operated by owners, there is need for intervention to look more closely at the underlying causes of the closures.

50.4

24.3

10.8

6.64.9

1.5 1.1 0.30.1

Brant County: Percentage Distribution of all Registered Businesses by Employee Size Range ‐2010

Indeterminate

1‐4

5‐9

10‐19

20‐49

50‐99

100‐199

200‐499

500 +

60

Table5.1:NumberofBusinessesbyEmployeeSizeRangeEmployee Size Range Number of

Employers Absolute

Change 2008‐2010

Percentage Change 2008‐

2010

Percentage Distribution 2008


2008 2010

Total (A) 7,291 6,830 ‐461 ‐6.3 100.0 100.0

Indeterminate (B) 3,753 3,441 ‐312 ‐8.3 51.5 50.4

Subtotal (A ‐ B) 3,538 3,389 ‐149 ‐4.2 48.5 49.6

1‐4 1,690 1,663 ‐27 ‐1.6 23.2 24.3

5‐9 792 739 ‐53 ‐6.7 10.9 10.8

10‐19 472 449 ‐23 ‐4.9 6.5 6.6

20‐49 358 333 ‐25 ‐7.0 4.9 4.9

50‐99 115 103 ‐12 ‐10.4 1.6 1.5

100‐199 78 76 ‐2 ‐2.6 1.1 1.1

200‐499 25 19 ‐6 ‐24.0 0.3 0.3

500 + 8 7 ‐1 ‐12.5 0.1 0.1

Small & Medium Enterprises

7180 6728 ‐452 ‐6.3 98.5 98.5

Source: Calculations based on Canada Business Patterns Data, 2008‐2010

5.0.1BusinessesinAgricultureandRelatedIndustriesDistribution of businesses in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting showed that 62.4 percent of the businesses were operated by owners in 2010, compared to total registered businesses in the county that accounted for 50.4 percent under the same category. Employers with 1‐4 employees accounted for 19.9 percent of total businesses in agriculture in 2010 and only 1 business with employees between 100 and 199.

Graph5.2:DistributionofAgriculture,Forestry,FishingandHuntingRegisteredBusinessesbyEmployeeSizeRange

Source: Calculation based on Canada business Patterns Data

62.4

19.9

8.1

5.92.7

0.70.2 0

0

Brant County: Percentage Distribution (%) of Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Registered Businesses by Employee Size Range ‐ 2010

Indeterminate

1‐4

5‐9

10‐19

20‐49

50‐99

100‐199

200‐499

61

Table5.2PercentageChangeofNumberofBusiness‐AgricultureandRelatedIndustriesBrant County Number of Employers by Employee Size Range: Percentage 2008‐2010

Sector Total (A)

Indeterminate (B)

Subtotal (A ‐ B)

1‐4 5‐9 10‐19 20‐49 50‐99 100‐199

200‐499

500 +

Total ‐6.3 ‐8.3 ‐4.2 ‐1.6 ‐31.8 ‐4.9 ‐7.0 ‐10.4 ‐2.6 ‐24.0 ‐12.5

111 ‐ Crop Production ‐1.1 5.0 ‐7.7 13.0 ‐42.9 4.2 ‐25.0 ‐25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

112 ‐ Animal Production ‐9.8 ‐10.0 ‐9.1 ‐2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

113 ‐ Forestry and Logging

0.0 ‐50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

114 ‐ Fishing, Hunting and Trapping

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

115 ‐ Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐100.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

311 ‐ Food Manufacturing

‐23.3 ‐14.3 ‐26.1 ‐50.0 0.0 ‐50.0 ‐25.0 0.0 ‐66.7 ‐33.3 0.0

312 ‐ Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

411 ‐ Farm Product Wholesaler‐Distributors

‐33.3 ‐33.3 ‐33.3 0.0 ‐66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

413 ‐ Food, Beverage and Tobacco Wholesaler‐Distributors

‐25.0 ‐30.0 ‐22.7 0.0 ‐5.6 100.0 ‐33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

445 ‐ Food and Beverage Stores

2.9 ‐9.1 11.5 22.7 2.4 25.0 0.0 ‐20.0 33.3 0.0 0.0

722 ‐ Food Services and Drinking Places

‐2.2 ‐13.8 2.5 17.0 0.0 ‐8.3 7.1 ‐16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: Calculations based on Canada Business Patterns Data, 2008‐2010

The number of businesses in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting accounted for 6.5 percent of total businesses in the county in 2010. The sector lost 20 businesses (or decreased by 4.3%) between 2008 and 2010. Businesses in animal production were down by 9.8 percent, higher than crop production which recorded a decrease of 1.1 percent. The declining trend in crop production businesses was contrary to that observed at provincial level which recorded an increase of 4.1 percent during the same period. The province also lost businesses in animal production, but at a lower rate of one percent. Other industries with business losses between 2008 and 2010 included food manufacturing (‐23.3%), farm product wholesale distribution (‐33.3%) and food, beverage and tobacco wholesaler‐distributors (‐25%). The province also recorded decreases in number of companies in food manufacturing, but at a lower rate of 3.6 percent. The declining trend in businesses calls for strategic measures to sustain farm businesses or to look at alternative business sources. Diversification may be significant in reversing the declining trend in farm businesses.

62

Graph5.3:PercentageDistributionofTop10Employers(SmallandMediumEnterprises)

Source: Calculations based on Canada Business Patterns Data 2008‐2010 and Average Employment per Location in Ontario by Sectors/Sub‐Sectors 2008‐2010. Food services and drinking places (9.9%), speciality trades (%.8%), professional, scientific and technical services (4.1%), and administrative services (4.1) were among the top ten (SME) employers in the county in 2010. Crop production contributed 3.7 percent of employment in small and medium enterprises. The distribution of businesses by employment numbers, changes when you consider employment in all businesses as shown below. Most of the contribution in employment came from the service industries such as education, food and drinking places, health care, Nursing and residential care, professional and technical services and hospitals. Therefore, most of the employment in the county is driven by service industries. However, the sector is well diversified by different types of services.

Graph5.4:Top10Employers(allbusinesses)

Source: Calculated based on Canada Business Patterns Data 2008‐2010: Average Employment per Location in Ontario by Sectors/Sub‐

Sectors 2008‐2010

9.9

5.8

4.14.1

3.9

3.7

3.5

3

2.8

2.4

Brant County: Percentage Distribution of Top 10 Employers(Small and Medium Enterprises) 2010


238 ‐ Specialty Trade Contractors

541 ‐ Professional, Scientific & Technical Services

561 ‐ Administrative and Support Services

332 ‐ Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing

111 ‐ Crop Production

621 ‐ Ambulatory Health Care Services

484 ‐ Truck Transportation

813 ‐ Religious, Grant‐Making, Civic, & Professional and Similar Orgs.

522 ‐ Credit Intermediation & Related Activities

13

5.8

4.54.4

3.6

3.5

3.3

2.9

2.7 2.5

Brant County: Top 10 Employers ‐2010 (all businesses)

611 ‐ Educational Services


913 ‐ Local, Municipal and Regional Public Administration

621 ‐ Ambulatory Health Care Services

623 ‐ Nursing and Residential Care Facilities

238 ‐ Specialty Trade Contractors


622 ‐ Hospitals


541 ‐ Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

63

5.1EstimatedEmploymentbyEmployeeSizeRangeTotal employment in the county was estimated at 61,731 in June of 2010, down by more than 5,000 jobs from 2008, a decline of 7.7 percent. Employment in small and medium enterprises was estimated at 34,738 in 2010, down by 7 percent and slightly lower than total employment loss rate. All employee size range categories experienced job losses, with the highest job rate recorded in businesses with employee size range 200‐499 (down by 33.7% from 2008). Employment in indeterminate businesses was down by 8.3 percent. Ontario total employment was down by 1.6 percent and employment in SME dropped by 0.3 percent. Most of the decline in employment for the province came from large businesses, but businesses operated by owners also experienced large losses.

Table5.3:EstimatedEmploymentbyEmployeeSizeRangeEmployment by Employee Size Range

Number of Employees

Absolute Change 2008‐2010

Percentage Change 2008‐10



2008 2010

Total (A) 66,855 61731 ‐5124 ‐7.7 100.0 100.0

Indeterminate (B) 3,753 3,441 ‐312 ‐8.3 5.6 5.6

1‐4 3,600 3,553 ‐47 ‐1.3 5.4 5.8

5‐9 5,147 4,806 ‐341 ‐6.6 7.7 7.8

10‐19 6,320 6,020 ‐300 ‐4.7 9.5 9.8

20‐49 10,740 9,985 ‐755 ‐7.0 16.1 16.2

50‐99 7,790 6,933 ‐857 ‐11.0 11.7 11.2

100‐199 10,334 10,032 ‐302 ‐2.9 15.5 16.3

200‐499 5,215 3,455 ‐1760 ‐33.7 7.8 5.6

500 + 13,956 13,506 ‐450 ‐3.2 20.9 21.9

Small & Medium Enterprises

37,349 34,738 ‐2611 ‐7.0 55.9 56.3

Source: Calculations based on Canada Business Patterns Data 2008-2010 and Average Employment per Location in Ontario by Sectors/Sub-Sectors 2008-2010

5.1.1EmploymentinAgricultureandRelatedIndustriesTotal employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting was estimated at 1,741 in 2010, down by 116 from 2008. Overall percent decline in the sector was 6.2 percent, slightly lower than total employment loss rate of 7.7 during the same period. Employment in crop and animal production fell by 5.4 and 10.4 percent respectively. Loss in employment was also recorded in wholesale distribution for farm products and food, beverage and tobacco. Food manufacturing and food and beverage stores realized significant gains in employment of 21.8 and 13.6 percent respectively.

64

Table5.4:EmploymentinAgricultureandRelatedIndustries

Brant County: Total Estimated Employment

2008 2010 Absolute Change

2008‐10

Percentage Change 2008‐

2010



Total 66,855 61,731 ‐5124 ‐7.7 100.0 100.0

111 ‐ Crop Production 1,484 1,404 ‐80 ‐5.4 2.2 2.3

112 ‐ Animal Production 327 293 ‐34 ‐10.4 0.5 0.5

113 ‐ Forestry and Logging 17 22 5 29.4 0.0 0.0


0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0


29 22 ‐7 ‐24.1 0.0 0.0

311 ‐ Food Manufacturing 1,693 2,062 369 21.8 2.5 3.3


0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0


48 40 ‐8 ‐16.7 0.1 0.1


204 159 ‐45 ‐22.1 0.3 0.3

445 ‐ Food and Beverage Stores 1,445 1,641 196 13.6 2.2 2.7


3,722 3,576 ‐146 ‐3.9 5.6 5.8

Totals: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting

1,857 1,741 ‐116 ‐6.2 2.8 2.8

Agricultural, food Manufacturing and Agri‐Services

7,112 7,478 366 5.1 10.6 12.1

Totals: Agriculture and Related Industries

8,969 9,219 250 2.8 13.4 14.9

Source: Calculations based on Canada business Patterns Data, 2008-2010

5.1.2EmploymentinAgricultureandRelatedIndustries‐PercentageChange‐TotalEmploymentversusEmploymentinSMEWhen comparing total estimated employment to that of SMEs, the picture is somewhat different for some industries. Food manufacturing recorded job losses in SME, but the losses were offset by increases in total employment from large businesses. Crop production job loss rate was higher in SME compared to total employment. Crop production had only one business with over 100 employees in 2010.

65

Table5.5:PercentageChangeinEmployment2008‐2010 Brant County Province of Ontario LQ –Jobs Brant County

NAICS‐Sector/Industry

Estimated Total Employment: Percentage

Change 2008‐10

Employment in Small and Medium

Enterprises Percentage

Change 2008‐10

Estimated Total Employment: Percentage

Change 2008‐10

Employment in Small and Medium

Enterprises: Percentage

Change 2008‐10

Total Employment

Small and Medium

Enterprises

Total‐ all businesses ‐7.7 ‐7.0 ‐1.6 ‐0.3 ‐ ‐

111 ‐ Crop Production ‐5.4 ‐14.6 0.9 0.7 3.12 3.15

112 ‐ Animal Production ‐10.4 ‐10.4 1.3 1.3 0.97 0.99

113 ‐ Forestry and Logging

29.4 29.4 ‐14.1 ‐13.9 0.32 0.43


0.0 0.0 ‐2.0 ‐2.0 0.00 0.00


‐24.1 ‐24.1 10.9 10.9 0.39 0.40


21.8 ‐12.3 ‐6.7 ‐0.9 2.53 1.33


0.0 0.0 8.5 ‐4.8 0.00 0.00


‐16.7 ‐16.7 3.7 4.3 0.83 0.99


‐22.1 ‐22.1 ‐7.1 0.3 0.30 0.59


13.6 ‐5.7 2.3 1.4 1.12 0.73


‐3.9 ‐4.1 ‐0.7 0.6 0.90 1.05

Source: Calculations based Canada Business Patterns Data, 2008‐2010 and Average Employment per Location in Ontario by Sectors/Sub‐Sectors 2008‐2010 5.1.3LocationQuotient,LeadingandLaggingIndustries:AgricultureandRelatedIndustries The county had a high location quotient (or level of employment concentration for local jobs) of 3.12 in crop production and 2.53 in food manufacturing in 2010. The LQ for other sectors in agriculture and related industries ranged between low and average (0.3 ‐1.12). The leading industries in agriculture and related sectors/industries are forestry and logging, food manufacturing and food and beverage stores. Crop and animal production and support activities for agriculture and forestry are leading industries at provincial level, but lagging at county level due to significant losses in employment relative to provincial losses/gains. Table 5.6 below provides more information.

66

Table5.6:LeadingandLaggingSectors/Industries:AgricultureandRelatedSectors/IndustriesIndustry Percentage Change in

Employment 2008‐20010 Brant County‐ Location Quotient (LQ) Jobs

Relative Sector Growth

NAICS Brant County Ontario Brant LQ LQ level Brant: Local

Relative Sector Growth

Provincial Relative Sector Growth

Total ‐7.7 ‐1.6

111 ‐ Crop Production ‐5.4 0.9 3.12 High Lagging ‐ Leading +

112 ‐ Animal Production ‐10.4 1.3 0.97 Average Lagging ‐ Leading +

113 ‐ Forestry and Logging 29.4 ‐14.1 0.32 Low Leading + Lagging ‐


0.0 ‐2.0 0 N/A N/A Lagging ‐


‐24.1 10.9 0.39 Low Lagging ‐ Leading +

311 ‐ Food Manufacturing 21.8 ‐6.7 2.53 High Leading + Lagging ‐


0.0 8.5 0 N/A N/A Leading +


‐16.7 3.7 0.83 Average Lagging ‐ Leading +


‐22.1 ‐7.1 0.3 Low Lagging ‐ Lagging ‐


13.6 2.3 1.12 Average Leading + Leading +


‐3.9 ‐0.7 0.9 Average Lagging ‐ Lagging ‐

Source: Calculations based Canada Business Patterns Data, 2008‐2010 and Average Employment per Location in Ontario by Sectors/Sub‐Sectors 2008‐2010

67

SectionVITrendsinOccupationsandTraining

6.0TrendsinOccupationsandTrainingThe educational attainment level of county residents is diversified for all age groups. The percentage of labour force (all age groups 15‐64 years) with no certificates or diploma/degree is higher for the county compared to provincial figures, with the gap falling between 5 to 6 percent for all age groups. Of great concern is the high percentage of labour force between 45 and 54 without high school diploma (21%). From age groups 25 through 64, percentages of labour force with high school diploma and certificates are higher for Brant County than provincial rates. This trend is the same as that observed with trades and apprenticeship and college certificates. The county outperforms the province when it comes to the proportion of high school diplomas, apprenticeship/trades and college certificates. However, the county falls behind provincial rates when it comes to university certificates and degrees, with provincial percentage rates or shares almost doubling those at county level for some age groups (ages 25‐34 has an 18.4 percent gap between the county and the province). There is need to upgrade skills and further education beyond high school, trades and college level. With changes in technology, most future jobs will require a post secondary education and it is also necessary to catch up with provincial trends. Table 6.1 below provides more information.

Table6.1:LevelofEducationbyAgeGroup Educational Level Ages 15‐24 Ages 25‐34 Ages 35‐44 Ages 45‐54 Ages 55‐64

Brant Ontario Brant Ontario Brant Ontario Brant Ontario Brant Ontario

No certificate, diploma or degree

45.23 39.90 14.63 8.68 15.41 10.47 21.17 14.50 27.73 22.13

High School Certificate or Equivalent

37.24 38.59 28.58 23.81 28.44 24.29 29.33 27.21 26.37 24.39

Apprenticeship or Trades Certificate or Diploma

1.98 2.31 8.71 5.98 10.80 8.64 11.38 9.59 11.96 10.91

College, CEGEP or other non‐university Certificate or Diploma

10.27 9.86 29.36 24.34 26.50 23.88 22.48 21.50 18.07 17.46

University Certificate Diploma or Degree

5.29 9.35 18.78 37.18 18.86 32.72 15.65 27.20 15.84 25.11

Total (%) 100.00 100.00 100.07 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.97 100.00

Total (Actual) 16,650 1,624,835 14,695 1,529,590 18,110 1,907,560 19,110 1,852,290 14335 1,348,885

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006

6.1EducationbyMajorFieldofStudy,2006In Brant County, the percentage of professionals with major field of study in agriculture, natural resources and conservation is consistent with some provincial and national trends. Professionals in agriculture, natural resources and conservation accounted for 1.4 percent of total occupations in 2006, close to the provincial rate of 1.2 percent and the same as the national rate of 1.4 percent. About 53.4 percent of total agriculture, natural resources and conservation have college/diploma non university certificates. This is slightly higher than the national rate at 40 percent and Provincial rate 44 percent. The county falls below national (29.7%) and provincial (33.7%) level numbers in university degrees at 17 percent. Considering the complexity of farm management and advances and changes in technology in agriculture and natural resources, there seems to be a gap in educational level. The skill set in agriculture now, especially in farm management increasingly requires a minimum of university degree. At minimum, professional occupations in agriculture will demand a university degree or equivalent.

68

Table6.2EducationalLevelbyMajorFieldofStudy:Agriculture,NaturalResourcesandConservation Major Field of Study

Total ‐ Highest Certificate, Diploma or Degree

No Certificate, Diploma or Degree

High School Certificate or Equivalent

Apprenticeship or Trades Certificate or

Diploma

College, CEGEP or Non‐University Certificate or Diploma

University Certificate or Diploma Below

The Bachelor Level

University Certificate or

Degree

Brant County

Total ‐ Major field of study

63,630 12,335 19,470 6,290 15,020 1,915 8,595

Agriculture, natural resources & conservation

880 0 0 115 470 150 150

% of total field of study

1.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2

% of total agriculture, natural resources & conservation

100.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 53.4 17.0 17.0

Ontario


6,164,245 820,835 1,677,085 504,725 1,348,060 274,860 1,538,685


71610 0 0 8890 31490 7080 24150


1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4


100.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 44.0 9.9 33.7

Canada


16,021,180 2,323,155 4,180,295 1,897,680 3,290,735 761,880 3,567,430


225680 0 0 46180 90615 21775 67110


1.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.4


100.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 40.2 9.6 29.7

Source: Statistics Canada, major field of study, 1996‐2006

6.2Brantford‐OccupationsinAgricultureandRelatedIndustries1996‐2006Overall, the total labour force in Brantford grew by 8.8 percent between 2001 and 2006. Occupations in life science professions increased by 40 percent during 2001 and 2006, with most of the increase attributed to biological and related scientists. Technical occupations in life sciences also registered an increase of 53 percent between 2001 and 2006; the increase came from landscape and horticultural technicians and specialists. Occupations unique to primary industries also recorded an increase of 6.1 percent during the same period. Major contributors to this upward trend were nursery and greenhouse operators and managers and supervisors in landscape and horticulture. As expected, the major losers under this category were farmers and farm managers who recorded consecutive declines of 22 percent between 1996 and 2006 and 2001 and 2006. As the number of farms is falling, so are farm managers and farmers who operate the farms. The table below provides more information:

69

Table6.3A:Brantford‐OccupationsinAgricultureandRelatedIndustries1996‐2006Major Field of Study Total Sex Absolute Change Percentage Change

Occupation ‐ Standard Occupational Classification 1991 (Historical) (707)

1996 2001 2006 1996‐2006

2001‐2006

1996‐2006

2001‐2006

Total labour force 57,620 62,065 67,535 9,915 5,470 17.2 8.8

Occupation ‐ Not applicable 1,580 790 880 ‐700 90 ‐44.3 11.4

C02 Life science professionals 20 25 35 15 10 75.0 40.0

C021 Biologists and related scientists 20 15 25 5 10 25.0 66.7

C022 Forestry professionals 0 0 10 10 10 0.0 0.0

C12 Technical occupations in life sciences 30 65 100 70 35 233.3 53.8

C121 Biological technologists and technicians 0 15 15 15 0 0.0 0.0

C122 Agricultural and fish products inspectors 25 10 15 ‐10 5 ‐40.0 50.0

C123 Forestry technologists and technicians 0 0 10 10 10 0.0 0.0

C124 Conservation and fishery officers 0 10 10 10 0 0.0 0.0

C125 Landscape and horticultural technicians and specialists 10 50 45 35 ‐5 350.0 ‐10.0

I Occupations unique to primary industry 2,225 2,220 2,355 130 135 5.8 6.1

I0 Occupations unique to agriculture, excluding labourers 1,800 1,715 1,655 ‐145 ‐60 ‐8.1 ‐3.5

I01 Contractors, operators and supervisors in agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture

1,100 1,030 960 ‐140 ‐70 ‐12.7 ‐6.8

I011 Farmers and farm managers 885 885 690 ‐195 ‐195 ‐22.0 ‐22.0

I012 Agricultural and related service contractors and managers 25 10 0 ‐25 ‐10 ‐100.0 ‐100.0

I013 Farm supervisors and specialized livestock workers 35 45 45 10 0 28.6 0.0

I014 Nursery and greenhouse operators and managers 25 15 55 30 40 120.0 266.7

I015 Landscaping and grounds maintenance contractors and managers

65 45 55 ‐10 10 ‐15.4 22.2

I016 Supervisors, landscape and horticulture 55 30 120 65 90 118.2 300.0

I017 Aquaculture operators and managers 10 0 0 ‐10 0 ‐100.0 0.0

I02 Agriculture and horticulture workers 695 680 695 0 15 0.0 2.2

I021 General farm workers 600 550 525 ‐75 ‐25 ‐12.5 ‐4.5

I022 Nursery and greenhouse workers 100 130 165 65 35 65.0 26.9

I2 Primary production labourers 390 465 625 235 160 60.3 34.4


I211 Harvesting labourers 70 15 60 ‐10 45 ‐14.3 300.0

I212 Landscaping and grounds maintenance labourers 305 440 555 250 115 82.0 26.1



Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities declined between 1996 and 2006; the rate of decline was higher between 2001 and 2006 at 9 percent as opposed to 2.1 percent during 1996 and 2006. While total supervisory occupations under processing and manufacturing dropped between 1996 and 2006 (‐18.3% and ‐28%), supervisors in food, beverage and tobacco processing showed some significant growth (61% in 2001‐06). Significant increases were also registered in machine operators and related workers in food, beverage and tobacco processing. The table below provides more information.

70

Table6.3B:Brantford‐OccupationsinAgricultureandRelatedIndustries1996‐2006Major Field of Study Total Sex Absolute Change Percentage Change

Occupation ‐ Standard Occupational Classification 1991 (Historical) (707)

1996 2001 2006 1996‐2006

2001‐2006

1996‐2006

2001‐2006

Total labour force 57,620 62,065 67,535 9,915 5,470 17.2 8.8

Occupation ‐ Not applicable 1,580 790 880 ‐700 90 ‐44.3 11.4

J Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities 8,535 9,185 8,355 ‐180 ‐830 ‐2.1 ‐9.0

J0 Supervisors in manufacturing 720 630 515 ‐205 ‐115 ‐28.5 ‐18.3

J01 Supervisors, processing occupations 370 375 270 ‐100 ‐105 ‐27.0 ‐28.0

J013 Supervisors, food, beverage and tobacco processing 50 65 105 55 40 110.0 61.5

J015 Supervisors, forest products processing 25 50 15 ‐10 ‐35 ‐40.0 ‐70.0

J17 Machine operators and related workers in food, beverage and tobacco processing

195 255 320 125 65 64.1 25.5

J171 Process control and machine operators, food and beverage processing

70 105 165 95 60 135.7 57.1

J172 Industrial butchers and meat cutters, poultry preparers and related workers

85 130 105 20 ‐25 23.5 ‐19.2

J174 Tobacco processing machine operators 15 0 10 ‐5 10 ‐33.3 0.0

J175 Testers and graders, food and beverage processing 20 25 40 20 15 100.0 60.0

J3 Labourers in processing, manufacturing and utilities 2,100 2,495 2,055 ‐45 ‐440 ‐2.1 ‐17.6

J31 Labourers in processing, manufacturing and utilities 2,100 2,490 2,050 ‐50 ‐440 ‐2.4 ‐17.7

J317 Labourers in food, beverage and tobacco processing 210 385 485 275 100 131.0 26.0

J319 Other labourers in processing, manufacturing and utilities 875 805 795 ‐80 ‐10 ‐9.1 ‐1.2


71

SectionVIIIssuesandChallengesFacingAgricultureandAgri‐Businesses

7.0IssuesofConsolidationofFarmsIt is well known that small and medium size farms are being consolidated into large farm corporations. The table below looks more specifically at the number of farms under different area categories and trends between two census years. Which farm enterprises have been affected most ‐ the small or medium size enterprises? In terms of number of acres, there is no distinct classification of small and large farms among farm categories stipulated by Statistics Canada. What could be considered as a small farm in terms of area may not be small when it comes to gross farm receipts. According to Statistics Canada, small farms are farms with gross income under $100,000. Both area and gross farm receipts will be examined to determine to what extent small and medium farms if any, have been affected by farm consolidations. For Brant County, the number of farms under 10 acres increased by 12.8 between 2001 and 2006 and so did the number of farms with area between 10‐69 acres (up by 14.7%). This trend is the same at regional, provincial and national level. The number of farms starts declining at 70 acres and goes all the way up to 559 acres before increases are recorded again. This trend is the same at regional, provincial and national level. The national level decreases go beyond 559 acres as shown in table 7.1 below. For Brant County, Southern Ontario and Ontario province, the increase in number of farms with 560 acres and over may possibly account for some of the decrease in number of farms between 70 and 559 acres. Overall, it is clear that large farms are increasing in numbers and so are small farms. Medium size farms are declining and are probably the ones being consolidated into larger farms. For Brant County, the farms with significant decreases are those with acreage between 130 through 559.

Table7.1:TotalFarmAreaClassificationTotal Farm Area Classification

Percentage Change 2001‐2006 Percentage Distribution 2006

Brant County

Southern Ontario

Ontario Canada Brant County

Southern Ontario

Ontario Canada

Total Number of Farms 0.1 ‐4.9 ‐4.2 ‐7.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Under 10 acres 12.8 14.6 10.6 4.5 6.5 7.8 5.5 5.7

10 to 69 acres 14.7 5.2 9.4 5.3 31.4 30.3 23.9 15.4

70 to 129 acres ‐3.7 ‐13.7 ‐9.9 ‐6.8 22.2 20.0 22.5 11.4

130 to 179 acres ‐18.3 ‐18.3 ‐13.9 ‐16.7 9.3 8.9 9.8 10.6

180 to 239 acres ‐14.8 ‐16.5 ‐11.6 ‐9.7 9.2 8.0 9.6 5.7

240 to 399 acres ‐9.0 ‐11.1 ‐11.7 ‐12.4 9.9 11.2 13.2 12.6

400 to 559 acres ‐24.3 ‐5.7 ‐7.6 ‐11.4 3.4 5.5 6.4 7.5

560 to 759 acres 55.6 5.8 0.1 ‐12.4 3.4 3.3 3.8 6.1

760 to 1,119 acres 7.1 8.7 5.9 ‐14.9 1.8 2.5 2.9 7.0

1,120 to 1,599 acres 9.1 17.6 14.6 ‐13.8 1.5 1.3 1.3 5.7

1,600 to 2,239 acres 75.0 20.2 25.3 ‐4.6 0.9 0.7 0.6 4.6

2,240 to 2,879 acres 0.0 55.6 44.6 4.9 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.5

2,880 to 3,519 acres ‐100.0 ‐20.0 20.0 10.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.5

3,520 acres and over 0.0 107.1 49.2 24.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 3.3

Source: Statistics Canada, Agricultural Community Profile, 2001 and 2006

72

In 2006, farms with less than $100,000 in gross farm receipts accounted for 63.9 percent of all farms and those with gross receipts over $100,000 represented 36.1 percent of total farms. Only 10.3 percent of total farms had over $500,000 in gross receipts in 2006. Farms with over $500,000 gross receipts grew by 10.5 percent between 2001 and 2006, whereas farms with gross receipts between $100,000 and $249,999 and between $250,000 and $499,999 declined 9.6 and 5.4 percent, respectively. The decline in farms could account for some of the increase in the number of farmers with over $500,000 gross receipts, as farms become bigger in order to capture economies of scale and stay profitable and competitive in international markets. Farms with gross receipts under $10,000 and between $100,000 and $249,999 had the largest percent declines (13.2% and 9.6%, respectively) an indication of these farms being consolidated into large farm corporations. The trend is similar to that observed at regional, provincial and national level. There was a significant increase (24%) in number of farms with gross receipts between $50,000 and $99, 999 between 2001 and 2006, a sign of growth in small farms. This is also an indication of small farms getting bigger to capture economies of scale as economic conditions have changed over the years. Graph 7.1 and appendix 10 provide more information. Overall, there was an increase in the number of large farms with over $500,000 gross receipts, as well as an increase in small farms with gross receipts between $50,000 and $99, 999. However, the increases were offset by decreases in other farm gross receipt categories. As a result, there were no significant change in distribution of small (under $100,000 gross farm receipts) and large farms (over $250,000 gross farm receipts) between 2001 and 2006. Graph 7.1 Number of Farms by Gross Farm Receipts

Source: Statistics Canada, Agricultural Community Profile, 2001 and 2006

7.1IssuesofCommodityPricesOne of the reasons why farmers are not making profits is the lower prices they receive for their commodities. The table below shows average prices of major commodities received by Ontario farmers between 1981 and 2009. It is clear from the graph that prices have not increased much from their 1980s level. For example the average price of winter wheat was $4.27 per bushel in 1981 and $4.31 in 2009; the difference of only 4 cents in almost 3 decades. The years the average price went above $5 per bushel were in 1995 and 2007. The average price of soybeans was $7.17 per bushel in 1981 and $7.23 in 2006. The only years it went above $10 were in 1995 and from 2007 to 2009. Soybean price is expected to be above $10 in 2011. Between 1981 and 2009, there were a lot of yearly fluctuations in prices of many commodities, with little or no upward trends as shown in graph 7.2 below.

TotalNumber ofFarms

Under$10,000

$10,000 ‐$24,999

$25,000 ‐$49,999

$50,000 ‐$99,999

$100, 000 ‐$249,999

$250,000 ‐$499,999

Over$500,000

2000 817 190 126 100 96 136 93 76

2005 818 165 138 101 119 123 88 84

0100200300400500600700800900

Number of farm

s

Brant County: Number of Farms by Gross Farm Receipts (2000 & 2005 income)

73

Graph7.2:AveragePricesReceivedbyOntarioFarmers1981‐2009‐Crops

Source: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Statistics Division

The graph below shows average prices received by Ontario farmers for hogs, sheep and lambs. The price of lamb increased over the years, but with a lot of fluctuation. There is a niche market for lamb among ethnic groups in the province and prices have been rising since 2004.

Average price of sheep reached its peak of $164.33 per 100Kg. in 2006 and started declining towards 1998 average price of $125.95 per 100Kg between 2006 and 2008. The average price of hogs fluctuated a lot during 1981 and 2009. The price reached its highest level in 1996 at $197.45 per 100Kg. The average price of hogs in 2009 was $123.12 per 100Kg, close to 1999 average price of $122.25 per 100K. It is clear that the prices of commodities have not improved much over the years, while production and other costs have increased significantly.

Graph7.3:AverageLivestockPricesReceivedbyOntario19981‐2009


The average prices of beef showed periodic fluctuations, with some prices falling below their early 1990s level between 2004 and 2005. The average prices of cows, bulls, steers and heifers (100Kg live weight) were at their lowest level in 2004 and started picking up in 2005. All four average prices have not yet reached their early 1990s level since their downward trend in 2001, as shown in the graph 7.4 below.

0

2

4

6

8

10

121981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

$ per Bushel

Average Prices Received by Ontario Farmers ‐$/Bushel 1981‐2009

Winter wheat Grain corn Soybeans Barley Rye Oats

0

100

200

300

400

$100/Kg.

Average Prices Received by Ontario Farmers ‐$/100Kg (live weight and index 100 hogs) 1981‐2009

Hogs Slaughter sheep Slaughter lambs

74

Graph7.4:AveragePriceReceivedbyOntarioFarmers1981‐2009‐Beef


7.2IssuesofFarmLabourFinding farm workers does not appear to be a problem in Brant but the cost of labour is. The majority of those who responded to the surveys expressed concern about paying minimum wage. In most cases, they have to pay more than minimum wage in order to attract labour, as many Canadians are unwilling to do hard work for minimum wage. Paying more than minimum wage is not possible for most farmers, since it adds more to production costs and digs into the already vulnerable profits.

7.2.1SeasonalAgriculturalWorkerProgram(SAWP)The Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) was created to assist in alleviating shortages in agricultural seasonal farm labour in Canada. Ontario is one of the major recipients of the program. Applications for workers are made under the Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services (F.A.R.M.S). F.A.R.M.S is non‐profit, federally incorporated in 1987 to facilitate and coordinate the processing of requests for foreign seasonal agricultural workers. Authorized by Human Resources Skills Development Canada, F.A.R.M.S. performs an administrative role to the Caribbean and Mexican Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program. F.A.R.M.S. is a private sector run organization, governed by a Board of Directors, appointed from those commodity groups participating in the program. The policy of the Canadian government is to ensure that all employment opportunities for seasonal agricultural work in Canada are first made available to qualified Canadian citizens and permanent residents before recourse is made to the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (http://www.farmsontario.ca/). Participating counties and regions include Barbados, Eastern Caribbean, Jamaica and Mexico. Farmers who completed the surveys expressed concerns about the high cost of wages, benefits, insurance and worker retention. Participants noted that the cost of foreign workers equals costs associated with hiring Canadians, but that foreign workers are readily available. The agricultural wage rates for 2010 are shown below.

Some farms are finding it difficult to keep the same workers from year to year, especially with the foreign workers, as contracts have to be renewed every year. Therefore, training becomes a problem since it has to be done every year. In some cases farmers have asked for the same foreign workers, but one is not guaranteed of getting the same workers year after year. Overall, it was noted that having offshore workers was helpful in alleviating labour shortages since most Canadians do not want to work on farms.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

$ per 100Kg.

Average Prices Received by Ontario Farmers ‐$/100Kg (live weight) 1992‐2009

Slaughter bulls Slaughter cows Slaughter steers Slaughter heifers

75

Table7.2:AgriculturalWageRateandApprovedEmploymentPeriods–2010

Source: http://www.farmsontario.ca/ Despite the fact that there is a persistent shortage of agricultural seasonal workers, approved vacancies and arrivals declined between 2008 and 2009. Cancellations have gone up in most cases, resulting in declines in the number arrivals. Some of the declines are attributed to the decline in the number of farms, especially tobacco farms. Farmers expressed concern about the cost of hiring foreign workers. The associated costs of housing and insurance add on to the high costs of production.

Commodity Wage Term

Apiary

$9.50/HR January – March 30

$10.25/HR March 31 – December 15

Canning/food processing (Fruit & vegetables)



Flowers



Fruit (includes apples)



Greenhouse Vegetables



Nurseries



Sod



Tobacco flue



Tobacco black

$9.89/HR (harvest) January – March 30

$10.25/HR (harvest) March 31 – December 15

$9.50/HR(planting) January – March 30

$10.25/HR(planting) March 31 – December 15

Vegetables (includes ginseng and mechanically harvested tomatoes)



76

Table7.3:TotalWorkerArrivalsandCancellations 2008/2009 ACTIVITY COMPARISON

Activity Barbados Eastern Caribbean

Jamaica Trinidad/ Tobago

Sub‐total Caribbean

Mexico Combined Total

2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009

Vacancies Approved

199 221 646 558 6,650 6,686 1,308 1,156 8,803 8,621 9,850 9,522 18,653 18,143

Cancellations 15 20 28 31 180 227 128 83 351 361 378 426 729 787

Total Worker Arrivals

167 162 560 494 5,546 5,461 974 917 7,247 7,034 8,475 8,124 15,722 15,158

Total Worker Transfers

17 39 58 33 924 998 206 156 1,205 1,226 997 972 2,202 2,198


Vacancies Approved

11.1 ‐

13.6 0.5 ‐11.6 ‐2.1 ‐3.3 ‐2.7

Cancellations 33.3 10.7 26.1 ‐35.2 2.8 12.7 8.0

Total Worker Arrivals

‐3.0 ‐

11.8 ‐1.5 ‐5.9 ‐2.9 ‐4.1 ‐3.6

Total Worker Transfers

129.4 ‐

43.1 8.0 ‐24.3 1.7 ‐2.5 ‐0.2

Source: http://www.farmsontario.ca

7.3IssuesofFarmers’Share

7.3.1TheFarmers’ShareAs many farm operations are struggling to stay profitable and food prices keep rising, the debate over farmers’ share is gaining momentum. According to Statistics Canada, farm expenses accounted for 86 percent of revenue in 2008 (the Daily, 2008). For every dollar received, the farmer keeps only 14 cents. How much does the farmer get for his/her commodities? What percentage goes back to the farmer? The Keystone Agricultural Producers in Manitoba (KAP), Agricultural Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) and Wild Rose Agricultural Producers (WRAP) of Alberta commissioned a study in 2009, to look at the farmers’ share from the farm gate to the grocery store. The results indicated that the average farmers’ share decreased by about 1 percent. According to the study, from 2008 to 2009, the cost of groceries rose by 3.2 percent. The increase was not passed on to farmers since they received 1.7 percent less money than the previous year. The consumer paid $6.01 more, the producer/farmer received $0.86 less and the middleman received $6.87 more. The winners of the food chain according to the study were the middlemen. The farmers’ share project conducted between 2008 and 2009 using Canada’s Food Guide as a basis for the menu, focusing on family of 4 (2 adults: male and female and a 1 teenage female and one child) for one week showed that on average, only 26.25 percent of the cost of the entire week’s groceries for a family of four went back to the farm gate. However, the share does vary depending on the type of food as shown in table 7.4 below.

77

Table7.4:TheFarmers’Share2008‐09 Commodity Type Farmers’ share 2008 Farmers’ share 2009

Vegetables and fruit 29% 25%

Milk and alternatives 47% 53%

Meat and alternatives 28% 22%

Grain products 4% 5% Source: www.kap.mb.ca

Table 7.5 below shows the farmers’ share comparisons of different commodities and product groups. Note the difference in the price of 600 grams of sirloin steak between 2008 and 2009 and the absence of change in the farmers’ share. As a result of no change in the farmers’ share, the percentage change dropped from 44 percent in 2008 to 20 percent in 2009.

Table7.5:SummaryoftheResultsoftheFarmers’ShareProject2008‐09 Featured Products Total Cost Farmers’ Share Percentage of Farmers’ Share

(%)

2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009

Monday’s Breakfast

Oatmeal $2.35 $2.30 $0.08 $0.05 3% 2%

Milk $1.00 $1.15 $0.67 $0.74 67% 64%

Strawberries $7.98 $9.78 $1.64 $1.31 21% 13%

Monday’s Lunch

Pitas $0.83 $0.76 $0.09 $0.08 11% 9%

Turkey $5.63 $5.63 $0.87 $0.87 15% 15%

Vegetables puree soup $2.56 $2.56 $0.20 $0.20 8% 8%

Monday’s Supper

Pork chops $4.88 $7.40 $1.92 $1.52 39% 22%

Sweet potatoes $1.49 $1.99 $0.57 $0.46 38% 23%

Apple juice $0.45 $0.25 $0.15 $0.08 33% 31%

Couscous $4.32 $3.27 $0.04 $0.03 1% 1%

Individual Commodities/Products

2 loaves of bread $5.74 $4.54 $0.26 $0.22 5% 5%

900 grams of cheese $16.11 $14.82 $7.38 $8.02 45% 54%

2 cups of red pepper $3.99 $4.99 $0.40 $0.26 10% 5%

600 grams of turkey $11.25 $11.25 $1.74 $1.74 15% 15%

600 grams of sirloin $4.61 $9.15 $2.05 $2.05 44% 20%

1.2 kilograms of strawberries $7.98 $9.78 $1.64 $1.31 21% 13%

1.5 litres of yogurt $5.77 $5.05 $1.34 $1.47 23% 29%

700 grams of oatmeal $2.35 $3.30 $0.08 $0.05 3% 2%

Source: www.kap.mb.ca

The farmers’ share has been an issue for many years. An earlier study conducted at the Centre for Rural Studies and Enrichment at St. Peter’s College, Muenster, Saskatchewan in 2006 revealed the same pattern of declining farmers’ share over the years. The table below shows some of the results of the study.

78

Table7.6:TheFarmers’Share1981‐2005

Product 1981 Retail

1981 Producer

1981 Producer Share

2005 Producer Share

2005 Producer

1981 Retail

Litre of milk $0.80 $0.45 56(%) 38(%) $0.68 $1.78

Chicken (Kg). $3.13 $1.10 35(%) 23(%) $1.22 $5.32

Turkey (Kg.) $3.13 $1.44 46(%) 33(%) $1.49 $4.56

Eggs (dozen) $1.30 $0.99 76(%) 68(%) $1.53 $2.26

A1 and A2 Steers (Kg)/Sirloin steak (Kg.) $8.05 $1.60 20(%) 13(%) $1.95 $14.83

A1 and A2 Steers (Kg)/reg. Ground beef (Kg.) N/A $1.60 N/A 35(%) $1.95 $5.62

Pork (Kg)/ Pork chops (Kg.) $5.98 $1.56 26(%) 15(%) $1.51 $10.05

675 Grams box of corn flakes (corn)1 $1.63 $0.08 5(%) 2(%) $0.07 $3.58

675 Grams loaf of bread (wheat)2 $0.95 $0.11 12(%) 7(%) $0.11 $1.77

Flour (1Kg.) wheat3 $1.08 $0.29 27(%) 20(%) $0.28 $1.42

450 grams of box of Crackers (wheat) $1.26 $0.08 6(%) 4(%) $0.07 $2.01

Source: Diane J.F. Martz, “The farmer’s Share”: Compare the Share Update 2006, Centre for Rural Studies and Enrichment at St. Peter’s College, Muenster, Saskatchewan. 1. 681 grams of corn needed to make 675 grams of corn flakes 2. 574 grams of wheat needed to make 675 grams of loaf of bread 3. 1.44 Kilograms of wheat needed to make 1 kilogram of flour

7.4TheAgingFarmPopulationandTrendsinFarmOperators

7.4.1TheAgingFarmPopulation

Following national, provincial and regional trends, the county’s average age of farm operators has been on the increase over the years, as seen in graph 7.5 below. Average age was 49.2 in 1996, 51.4 in 2001 and 53.5 in 2006. Brant County farm operator average surpassed both national and provincial averages in 2006. They are fewer young people entering the profession now than they were 20 years ago and the older generation staying in the profession do not retire early, as in most cases there are no young people willing to succeed them. As the share of young farmers falls from census to census, the older group 55 years and over become relatively larger. One of the issues raised in the surveys was lack of savings for retirement. Some farmers are forced to continue farming even after reaching retirement age because they do not have enough savings to retire. The lack of profits due to low commodity prices, debt and high production costs were cited as major reasons for lack of savings.

Graph7.5:AverageAgeofFarmOperators

Source: Statistics Canada, Agricultural Community Profiles (historical), 2006

49.2 49.7 49.448.4

51.4 51 50.749.9

53.5 53.1 52.6 52

45

50

55

Brant County Southern Ontario Ontario Canada

Years

Brant County: Average Age of Farm Operators Vs National and Provincial Trends ‐2001‐2006 Census Years

1996

2001

2006

79

7.4.2TrendsinFarmOperatorsThe following table (7.6) and graph (7.6) reveal trends among farm operators in the county compared to those at national, provincial and regional level. Data from 1996 to 2006 indicates that the number of farm operators at all levels has been falling. The number of operators under the age of 35 years declined at a faster rate than the rest of their counterparts and their distribution moved from double digits in 1996 to single digits in 2006 (for Brant County, from 14.6 % in 1996 down to 6.6% in 2006). Overall, the number of farm operators in Brant County decreased by 19.9 percent between 1996 and 2006 and by 2.4 percent between 2001 and 2006. The number of farm operators under the age of 35 years fell by 30.4% between 2001 and 2006, while those between the ages of 35 and 54 dropped by 6.3 percent. At the same time, the number of farm operators 55 years and over increased by 8.1 percent and their proportion of total operators rose significantly from 34.6 percent in 1996 to 44.4 percent in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, there were minor increases in the number of female farm operators at regional (1.8%) and provincial (3.2%) level. This was in contrast to the county and national level where decreases in total number of female farm operators were recorded. However, when you take into account the number of farm operators on the farm, there was an increase in female single farm operators (22.2%) during the same period, with the trend being the same at all levels. Majority of female operators in county operate with partners (40.5%). In 2006, only 12.4 percent of females operated farms alone. The same trend was observed at national, provincial and regional level. See table 7.6 and appendices 3 and 4 for more details. About 7 percent of farm operators in the county resided off farms in 2006. Between 1996 and 2006, the rate of decline in farm operators residing off farms (‐32%) was higher than that of farm operators living on farms (‐18.1%). This is an indication that farmers with 2 jobs or part time farmers are more likely to drop out of farming than those that are full time. The downward trend was the same between 2001 and 2006 and the same at all levels (county, regional, provincial and national). Brant County gender distribution showed minor changes between 1996 and 2006, with female picking up less than a percentage point (0.3%) in 2006, while male distribution was down by 0.7 percentage points. This indicates that there are very few females joining and or leaving the farming profession.

80

Table7.7FarmOperatorCharacteristics1996‐2006

Source: Statistics Canada: Agricultural Community Profile, Historic data 2001 and 2006.

National, Provincial, Region & County

Difference in Number of Farm Operators

Percentage Change of Farm Operators

% Distribution of Farm Operators

% of Total Loss/Gain of Operators

Selected Variables 1996‐2001

1996‐2006 2001‐2006

1996‐2001

1996‐2006

2001‐2006

1996 2006 2001‐2006

Brant County

Total operators ‐270 ‐300 ‐30 ‐17.9 ‐19.9 ‐2.4 100 100 100

Male ‐195 ‐220 ‐25 ‐18.3 ‐20.7 ‐2.9 70.8 70.1 83.3

Female ‐80 ‐85 ‐5 ‐18.0 ‐19.1 ‐1.4 29.6 29.9 16.7

Under 35 years ‐105 ‐140 ‐35 ‐47.7 ‐63.6 ‐30.4 14.6 6.6 116.7

35 to 54 years ‐140 ‐180 ‐40 ‐18.2 ‐23.4 ‐6.3 51.2 49.0 133.3

55 years and over ‐25 15 40 ‐4.8 2.9 8.1 34.6 44.4 ‐133.3

Reside off farm ‐15 ‐40 ‐25 ‐12.0 ‐32.0 ‐22.7 8.3 7.1 83.3

Reside on farm ‐250 ‐255 ‐5 ‐18.1 ‐18.5 ‐0.4 91.7 93.4 16.7

Southern Ontario

Total operators ‐4,580 ‐5,750 ‐1,170 ‐14.0 ‐17.6 ‐4.2 100 100 100

Male ‐3,115 ‐4,420 ‐1,305 ‐13.0 ‐18.5 ‐6.3 73.0 72.2 111.5

Female ‐1,475 ‐1,345 130 ‐16.7 ‐15.2 1.8 27.0 27.8 ‐11.1

Under 35 years ‐1,725 ‐2,455 ‐730 ‐38.1 ‐54.2 ‐26.0 13.8 7.7 62.4

35 to 54 years ‐1,735 ‐3,015 ‐1,280 ‐10.6 ‐18.5 ‐8.8 49.8 49.3 109.4

55 years and over ‐1,135 ‐285 850 ‐9.5 ‐2.4 7.9 36.4 43.1 ‐72.6

Reside off farm ‐450 ‐890 ‐440 ‐12.7 ‐25.1 ‐14.2 10.8 9.8 37.6

Reside on farm ‐4,130 ‐4,865 ‐735 ‐14.2 ‐16.7 ‐2.9 89.2 90.2 62.8

Ontario

Total operators ‐11,925 ‐14,530 ‐2,605 ‐12.3 ‐15.0 ‐3.1 100 100 100

Male ‐8,835 ‐12,170 ‐3,335 ‐12.4 ‐17.1 ‐5.4 73.3 71.4 128.0

Female ‐3,090 ‐2,365 725 ‐11.9 ‐9.1 3.2 26.7 28.6 ‐27.8

Under 35 years ‐4,860 ‐6,765 ‐1,905 ‐35.1 ‐48.9 ‐21.2 14.3 8.6 73.1

35 to 54 years ‐4,845 ‐8,715 ‐3,870 ‐9.9 ‐17.8 ‐8.8 50.5 48.9 148.6

55 years and over ‐2,220 960 3,180 ‐6.5 2.8 10.0 35.2 42.5 ‐122.1

Reside off farm ‐1,425 ‐2,655 ‐1,230 ‐14.9 ‐27.7 ‐15.1 9.9 8.4 47.2

Reside on farm ‐10,505 ‐11,880 ‐1,375 ‐12.0 ‐13.6 ‐1.8 90.1 91.6 52.8

Canada

Total Operators ‐39,410 ‐58,545 ‐19,135 ‐10.2 ‐15.2 ‐5.5 100 100 100

Male ‐33,250 ‐52,045 ‐18,795 ‐11.5 ‐18.1 ‐7.4 74.8 72.2 98.2

Female ‐6,165 ‐6,505 ‐340 ‐6.3 ‐6.7 ‐0.4 25.2 27.8 1.8

Under 35 years ‐21,140 ‐31,135 ‐9,995 ‐34.6 ‐51.0 ‐25.0 15.8 9.1 52.2

35 to 54 years ‐14,600 ‐36,010 ‐21,410 ‐7.3 ‐18.0 ‐11.5 51.9 50.2 111.9

55 years and over ‐3,675 8,595 12,270 ‐3.0 6.9 10.2 32.3 40.7 ‐64.1

Reside off farm ‐6,380 ‐15,975 ‐9,595 ‐12.6 ‐31.5 ‐21.7 13.1 10.6 50.1

Reside on farm ‐33,030 ‐42,580 ‐9,550 ‐9.9 ‐12.7 ‐3.2 86.9 89.4 49.9

81

Graph 7.6 shows the number of farm operators for Brant County between 1996 and 2006 census years. It is clear that the county had a loss of farm operators in every category. However, the county added 40 operators who were 55 years old and over and 10 female single operators between 2001 and 2006. Despite these increases, the numbers were offset by large declines in other farm operator categories, leaving the county with a net loss of 30 operators in 2006. Graph7.6TrendsinFarmOperators1996‐2006CensusYears


In summary, farm operators that are likely to drop out of farming are male farm operators under the age of 35 years and between 35‐54 years, whether they operate alone or with partners. Operators that reside off farm are also more likely to drop out. There was an increase in the number of single female farm operators between 2001 and 2006, and the trend was the same at national, provincial, regional and county level. Although there was an increase in the number of female operators, there were no significant shifts in their distribution between the census years and their numbers still fell short of the 1996 level.

7.5MainIssuesfromtheSurveysThe price of commodities and the farmer’s share were major issues mentioned by farmers. They feel that they are not getting a fair return for their commodities and that most commodities are not profitable due to low market prices. Some of the commodity prices are still at or below their 1980s or 1990s level, while wages, energy and input costs have gone up over the years. The minimum wage was also an issue as it is beyond the reach of most farmers in the presence of low market prices. Majority of farmers who responded to the survey identified no training needs. Those that need training identified training in farm management (training in crops), financial management, certification for chemical spraying and farm safety (especially first aid for their workers). Barriers to training primarily related to the high cost of training, courses not offered at convenient times and the lack of funds. Major sources of training were on‐the‐job for employees and workshops and college/university for farm operators/farmers. With regard to government programs, farmers mentioned lack of support from the government, especially in areas of marketing their commodities and commodity prices. They feel they are being undercut by cheap imports from China and México and the government is doing little to stop that. Farmers believe the government should protect farms by not allowing cheap imports into the country when the local products are available.

Total operators Male Female Under 35 years 35 to 54 years 55 years and

over

1996 1,505 1,065 445 220 770 520

2001 1,235 870 365 115 630 495

2006 1,205 845 360 80 590 535

0200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,600

Number of farm

operators

Brant County : Trends in Farm Operators 1996‐2006 Census Years

82

The majority of farmers who responded to the survey did not have a successor (or a succession plan). Common reasons given were enterprises not being profitable and labour shortages. These reasons were also given when it came to the question of expansion of farm operations. However, most of those who responded to the survey did not seem to have need for farm workers. The number of farm workers in Brant County ranged from 1‐25 employees per farm. The data from the statistics Canada show that the farm population is aging. Most survey participants fell within the 45‐55 age range, mirroring statistical data on an aging population. There were a few farmers that fell under the 65‐74 years category. As noted earlier, the main reason for not retiring is lack of savings for retirement, since most farm operations are not profitable. Debt was also mentioned as one of the factors preventing older farmers from retiring when they are supposed to. It is not surprising that in Brant County, the number of farm operators 55 years and over increased by 2.9 percent between 1996 and 2006 and by 8.1 percent between 2001 and 2006. Their distribution rose from 34.6 percent in 1996 to 44.4 percent in 2006. Farmers under the age of 35 years have moved from a double digit share in 1996 to single digit share in 2006. With regard to skilled farm labour, a few farmers noted that there was lack of skilled machinery operators in the county. Most of the machinery operations now require skilled personnel that are trained in GPS (Global Positioning System). GPS Technology in farming is used to navigate farm equipment for planting, harvesting, spraying pesticides and herbicides or applying fertilizer accurately and yield could be improved significantly (http://www.brighthub.com).

Other important issues worth noting and/or raised in the surveys include the following:

Farmers would like to see the government take the lead in research and development into alternative crops.

For those in supply managed industries, there is a concern about the high cost of quotas and farmers would like to see some reduction in prices.

Potential commodities identified by farmers in Brant County include, fruits and vegetables (especially organic grown vegetables under community shared agriculture).

Due to the high cost of wages, farmers would like to see government offering wage rebates or wage subsidies.

The cost of government regulation is forcing some small food processors to close their businesses. Those affected would like to see some reduction in red tape/paper work.

Besides those with an agricultural background, the county has a diversified group of occupations such as machinists, computer programmers, mathematicians, Welders, college teachers, bookkeepers, Social workers, etc. This is an indication of the need to upgrade skills in order to efficiently run farms.

83

SectionVIIIFutureLabourForceChallenges,StrategiesandRecommendations

8.0PotentialGrowthAreasThe county supports a wide range of crops, vegetables and livestock production. Potential growth areas lie in crop and vegetable production. For grains and oilseeds, the potential for growth is evident due to their use in animal feed and bio‐products such as ethanol, diesel and nutraceuticals. Grains or crop production will continue to dominate, especially wheat, corn and soybeans. According to USDA, grain prices are not expected to increase, but are likely to remain above 2006 level for the next decade, if there are no major disasters such as floods and droughts. Oilseed and grain farming accounted for 32 percent of the total farm operations in the county in 2006. Vegetable production is a significant industry in the county. In 2006, both area and number of farms under vegetable production increased by 12.3 and 2 percent, respectively. Therefore, most of the training should be directed towards crop and vegetable (horticulture) production. There is some growth in the production of fresh vegetables and these have potential growth for the county due to increased demand created by local campaigns for local produce. Opportunities for farm energy production are there for those in animal and vegetable production, using manure and waste to produce biogas for energy.

8.1 ChallengesfortheAgriculturalSector

Agriculture has gone through many changes over the years. Most of the trends have been fostered by changes in technology that have resulted in many new products and innovations. Technology has changed a lot, from simple farm budgets to complicated computer spreadsheets. Moving from traditional labour intensive operations in some commodities to mechanized operations, from simple family operated farms to large commercial operations. For many, the changes come with a lot challenges and issues that are difficult to overcome in a short period. The challenges and issues in turn have an impact on job creating since some farmers are losing their livelihood and for others, it is difficult to hire additional help to remain viable or expand operations. In Canada small and medium farms are being consolidated into large commercial farms. Farms that are struggling to make profits are sold to more profitable, large commercial operations. Family operated farms still represent a large percentage of total farms, but survival for these farms has not been easy. Farmers emphasized the need to go big in order to make profits. For some this might be true, but many factors impact profits including the type of crops grown or type of animals raised, prices and availability of markets. What farm enterprises have been affected most? In terms of area, farms affected most were those with acreage between 130 and 559 acres, with categories 180‐239 acres (down by 14.8%), 130‐179 acres (down by 18.3%) and 400‐559 acres (down by 24.3%) having the largest percentage declines between 2001 and 2006. In terms of gross revenue, the number of farms with gross revenue $100,000 ‐$249,999 had a moderate decrease of 9.6 percent. Farms with gross receipts under $10,000 also recorded a decrease of 13.2 percent. In contrast, farms with gross revenue $500,000 and over had a significant increase of 24 percent, confirming the consolidation of small and medium farms into large farm corporations. While Brant farmers did not appear to have problems attracting and retaining farm labour, the majority of respondents expressed concerns about the cost of minimum wage, the need to pay more than minimum wage to attract Canadian workers, and the increased impact this has on already vulnerable profits. Farmers will have to find cost cutting measures, especially in the area of energy consumption.

84

The farming population is aging across the nation. The number of farm operators is falling and there are fewer young people entering the farming profession now than they were 20 years ago. There are many obstacles and challenges facing new entrants and if these are not removed or solved, the downward trend will continue. The problems have not gone unnoticed, as there are a lot of discussions on how to reverse the trend. 8.1.1LabourForceChallenges,StrengthsandweaknessesChallenges

Profitability of farm enterprises will continue to be an issue and this has great impact on job creation, training and attracting new entrants into farming occupations.

The farmers’ share will continue to be a problem and solutions will require a change or a shift in policy and alternative business models to address profitability issues.

Diversification into other crops will require research and development into other crops and products. Farmers would like to see the government take a lead in research and development into alternative crops and products.

Growth in livestock, especially hog industry will continue to be a problem due to profitability issues. It is not know how far government assistance has gone in reviving the hog industry, as well as solving the cash flow problems the industry is facing.

It is not known whether the recent increases in food products will translate to increased incomes for farmers, since energy costs at farm level are likely to raise production costs due to increased energy costs, especially gas prices.

In the face of falling profits, farmers may not be willing to spend money on training if they cannot get a reward out of it or recover the money in terms of efficiency and knowhow. Therefore, getting farmers to go through the necessary skills needed to be efficient on farms may be a big challenge.

There are some government regulations that are affecting indeterminate businesses at farm and agri‐business level, especially processing industries (safety, health, paperwork/red tape, surveys, etc.).

Profitability of businesses, especially agri‐businesses, are forcing businesses to shut down or consolidate businesses in other places and this in turn is affecting marketing for local produce that depend on local processors.

There is no long term solution to the problem of labour shortages: other than offshore workers, there seems to be lack of a long term strategy to alleviate farm labour shortages, especially for farmers who cannot afford to pay for offshore workers. With unemployment rate at 8.6 percent in the province there is lack of strategy to utilize some of the unemployed workforce into farms.

Strengths The county has high quality and value of products that can compete favourably in international markets.

Significant value added opportunities exist in processing, bio‐products, functional foods and nutraceuticals for both farmers and agri‐businesses that could create jobs

There is a large export market in the USA and some of the emerging markets worldwide in horticulture, grains, honey and maple products.

Well establishments infrastructure for agriculture both at home and internationally;

There is a considerable amount of research and development into bio‐products, functional foods and nutraceuticals.

Funding for community development from provincial and federal governments is available.

Most communities are now committed to develop green economies and agriculture will play a major role.

The County’s proximity to major cities in both the US and Canada, universities and major highways, makes it an ideal place for a variety of business ventures, as access to innovation, infrastructure and potential markets is crucial in business development.

A large percentage of the labour force have high school certificate and above.

85

Weaknesses Lack of awareness on the opportunities that exist in agriculture now and the future will continue to be an

obstacle in attracting young people into farming occupations;

Lack of succession plans for those that have family farms – majority of those who had children did not seem to have any plans for succession, meaning that after they retire, farms are likely to remain unproductive;

There is very little effort put into value added products at farm level. Very few farmers in the survey indicated having added value operations;

Lack of long term strategy to alleviate labour shortages; and

Lack of viable alternative business models (e.g. producer cooperatives) that can pull resources together at farm and/or processor level.

8.1.2LabourForceChallengesandIssues:Lessonsfromthe2009DialogueForumAt an average age of 52 years across the country and 52.6 years for the county, it is clear that the farm population is aging. There are fewer young people entering the profession now than they were 20 years ago. So, where will the next generation of farmers come from? In November of 2009, the Honourable Jean‐Pierre Blackburn, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State Agriculture, hosted half‐day roundtable discussions with industry stakeholders in order to better understand the challenges and opportunities they face with respect to young farmers’ establishments and farm transfers. The forums included agricultural students, who intend or are already agricultural producers, producers who are beginning and retiring, representatives of associations, agricultural professors, and representatives from co‐operatives (2009 Dialogue Tour on Young Famers and Farm Transfers, November, 2009). The following were some of the issues raised: UncertaintyinAgriculture The students had concerns with the uncertainty in agriculture, profitability of farming and competiveness of the agricultural sector. Among the challenges they faced were access to capital, debt, cost of land, finding labour, learning and skills development, family and non‐family related transfers, transferring business versus selling assets and quality of life on farms. Students noted that it is hard for young job seekers to select agriculture as a career and make the required long term investment with the knowledge and perception that agriculture is synonymous with uncertainty and unpredictability. Students preferred the more constant and predictable wages available in other industries. They were aware that many farm families have off‐farm jobs to ensure adequate cash flow. This unpredictability in income influences their decision to farm and also the farm type and the nature of family farm takeovers (Partnership with a family member versus farming on their own). The students also identified the unpredictability of markets and commodity prices. Some students felt that the future of supply management is uncertain due to international trade negotiations resulting in their reluctance to invest in supply managed sectors. Others argued that supply management does not focus on market development and has resulted in many missed opportunities. Those who supported supply management saw it as being stable and profitable. With respect to profitability, most of those who attended the discussion sessions expressed concern over the uncertainty of profits in the sector in the face of high costs of land, buildings, equipment, labour, inputs, and transportation. Some students related stories about parents discouraging them from entering farming due to lack of profitability. The competitive position of Canadian agriculture in relation to other countries was an issue to many students and other attendees. Costs of production in Canada were viewed as high compared to other countries such as the US, Mexico and China, making it difficult for Canadian farmers to compete internationally. As a result cheap imports have undermined domestic/local production.

86

One of the challenges noted was access to capital. The huge start‐up costs in farming and inability to gain access to capital were major problems for many students. Some students were concerned about the high costs of entering supply managed sectors (costs of quota, land, buildings and animals) and the high market value of agriculture enterprises. If the parents do not own a quota, they may not be able to enter supply management sectors. New entrants may not have the same access to programs as existing farmers since they do not meet some of the minimum requirements. Also to have added value in a supply management sector, one has to buy a processor quota, thereby limiting added value opportunities at farm level if one cannot afford to buy the quota. It was felt that providing risk capital, capital grants and increase loan limits ($500,000) under the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act (CALA) was necessary. It was also suggested that the government should examine ways to set reasonable prices for farms and encourage farm machinery co‐operatives. StudentDebt With respect to debt, students expressed concern of incurring more debt to pursue a career in farming due to the risks associated with sector. Most agricultural students graduate with debt between $30,000 and $40,000. Managing more debt, especially immediately after graduation was a major concern. Students would prefer to work in other fields first for a couple years, pay down student loans and build up savings before starting a farming career. The students suggested lowering interest rates and waiving student loan for students entering farming. Availability of land and the high cost of land were viewed as major obstacles for starters in agriculture. However, alternatives of renting with options to buy through investors who buy land and lease it to farmers (e.g. Land Bank company) proved successful to young producers who started farming through renting land rather than buying outright. The question would be, is renting land profitable? This depends on the type of enterprise and the cost of renting land. AvailabilityofLabour One of the challenges facing agriculture today is availability of labour. Students feared they would not be able to attract and have access to skilled agricultural labour. The fear of losing skilled labour to other industries was expressed by many students, but they noted that the Temporary Foreign Worker Program remained a good source of labour and that young aboriginals are an emerging source of labour in many parts of the country. The groups suggested encouraging the formation of farm labour co‐operatives and improving agriculture’s public image and introducing high school students to agriculture as a career option. SkillsDevelopmentLearning and skills development is important to new and existing farmers. Those who attended group sessions felt that there was need for greater access to practical training such as apprenticeship, internships, mentorship programs and training in financial management, business planning and human resources. They suggested that governments should support training in these areas. Farm Transfers and Government Programs Information on provincial and federal programs aimed at young farmers and farm transfers were unknown to many students. Students and producers said that they had difficulties in discovering government programs available to assist them. It was suggested that information should be made available in schools and people outside commercial farming. Also, an ”one‐stop‐shop” for available government programs would allow them to spend less time searching. Training sessions on government programs would also help. Farm transfers were highlighted as being complex and in some cases costly (legal and transfer fees that accompany succession planning). There is also lack of information on farm transfers across the nation. For family related transfers, there is lack of pension funds for parents, since many farmers reinvest their savings in the business rather than put money aside for retirement. Therefore parents need the equity in their business for retirement. Participants felt there is a

87

need for intergenerational transfers that provide farmers with retirement income without overburdening new farmers with debt. They suggested the creation of a savings program for farm transfers that would allow producers to accumulate savings while in active farming. For non‐family transfers, participants noted that those without farm families are at a disadvantage when buying a farm. In family farm transfers, the farm may be sold at a fraction of the cost of the farm (e.g. 40% of the actual value) to a family member, whereas a non‐family member must buy at full price. Quality of life is important in attracting and retaining young farmers into the farming sector. The notion that people entering farming should accept less profit for an opportunity to become a farmer, makes farming less desirable for new entrants. Participants indicated that they want to live in vibrant rural communities with sustainable economies that offer as many services as those found in urban areas. Overall, young people want to enter farming, but it has to be profitable and predictable. They want to try new farm models that are profitable, venture into urban agriculture, consider farm co‐operatives and joint ventures, focus on sustainability and develop niche markets. They want government to rationalise their policies in areas where they contradict each other (e.g. promoting both red meat and ethanol industries). Potential farmers want more support for other models of farming rather than focusing on large scale industrial farming. They want a national policy on young and beginning farmers.

8.2RecommendationsandStrategiesfortheFuture

8.2.1RecommendationsonTrainingNeeds,FutureSkillsDevelopmentandOccupationsIn Brant County there were 80 farm operators under the age of 35 years and 535 who were 55 years and over in 2006. This gives a replacement ratio of 0.15. A one‐to‐one ratio is preferred since the young ones entering the profession are supposed to replace those retiring. The 535 farm operators represented 44.4 percent of total farm operators in the county, in 2006. These are expected to retire within the next 5‐10 years. Therefore, the county will need to replace 44 percent of farm operators within the next 10 years. The graph below shows the percentage distribution of farm operators in the county. Graph8.1PercentageDistribution(%)ofFarmOperators


Under 35 years6.6%

35 to 54 years49%

55 years and over44.4%

Brant County: Percentage Distribution (%) of Farm Operators by Age Group ‐2006

88

The county has a concentration of crop production and there is great potential for both grains and vegetable production, hence the need to concentrate training in crop and vegetable production. As the emphasis on green economies and energy expands, agriculture will play an important role in addressing sustainability issues. Skills and training should centre on developing and upgrading skills in green jobs and bio‐products. These are the areas where future growth is likely to occur, as agriculture will respond to some of the demands of green economies. A higher percentage of those with agriculture as a major field of study have only certificates or diploma, and the figures are below those at national and provincial level. Therefore, there is need to upgrade skills for those with no university degrees. Majority of those who responded to the survey indicated no training needs, but data does not support that. Training is needed to efficiently run the farms and upgrade skills with changes in technology and regulations/compliance. The issue of shrinking profits in several farm enterprises may be addressed through value‐added initiatives at farm level. The majority of those who responded to the survey did not have value‐added products. Training in added‐value opportunities is therefore needed. The lack of producer cooperatives means that value added opportunities are being surpassed at farm level. Farmers with enterprises that are under supply management have to buy a processor quota to realize added value for their commodities. If they are unable to buy a quota that means added value opportunities are not realized. The high cost of quotas under supply management was also a major issue for those who responded to the surveys. Another area where training is needed is in energy at farm level. There is need to teach farmers on how they can produce energy at farm level and be self‐sufficient. This will help in cutting energy costs at farm level. With the falling number of farm operators, there is need to develop strategies that will encourage young people to join farming careers. However, there are a lot of obstacles they face as new entrants that need to be solved first. Problems such as profitability of operations are external due to the nature of the business (much depends on weather) and its dependence on foreign markets. The recommendations suggested at the 2009 Forum should be a good start. Some of the suggestions put forward at the 2009 Forum include the following:

Securing markets to assist producers to adapt to changing markets and investments in innovation;

Establishing profitable business models and improving awareness of future opportunities in the agricultural sector;

Governments should be involved in promoting and marketing of domestic/local products;

Governments need to open new markets and address trade and regulatory barriers in agriculture;

Government should tax imports to raise prices for those in the country;

More support for processors, improvements in product labelling to respond to consumer interests;

Support innovation through bio‐economy opportunities and functional foods;

Providing risk capital, capital grants and increasing loan limits ($500,000) under the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act (CALA) is necessary;

The governments should examine ways to set reasonable prices for farms and encourage farm machinery and farm labour co‐operatives;

Lowering interest rates and waiving student loans for students entering farming;

Improving agriculture’s public image and introducing high school students to agriculture as a career option;

The creation of a savings program for farm transfers that would allow producers to accumulate savings while in active farming;

The governments should support training in the following areas: financial management, business planning and human resources as well as support practical training such as apprenticeship, internships, mentorship programs; and

Formulation of a national policy on young and beginning farmers was recommended.

89

8.2.2FarmLabourStrategies:LessonsfromtheCanadianAgriculturalHumanResourceCouncil(CAHRC)Some of the farmers who participated in the workshop on Labour Market Information Forum – Focus on Small farms by Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council (CAHRC) shared some of their ideas in attracting and retaining labour on the farms. It was recognised that labour needs on farms are constantly changing and that there is need for a support system for small farms. The notion that small farms do not need labour was dismissed. The forum discussed the need for a well‐trained and organized labour pool that can move from one farm to another. The attendees wanted to see apprenticeships on farms, with government taking the lead, as well as human resource training programs in agriculture offered at local universities such as Guelph. Recruiting Methods Recruiting methods used by farmers included the following:

Age targeting: some farmers have used age targeting in recruiting farm labour and have been successful in recruiting Canadians between the ages of 30 and 50;

Apprenticeship from abroad: some farms have participated with farm apprenticeships from abroad. There are certain colleges and universities abroad that send students to Canada to gain experience (e.g. a veterinary student from France working on a Canadian dairy or beef farm). Reputable Canadian and foreign organizations offering this service can be found through research but caution must be exercised. Some barriers may exist, e.g. language barriers. In most cases, the college or university pays for the student’s trip and insurance and the farmer pays for additional insurance, food and boarding;

Targeting disabled people: in certain cases farmers have been successful in targeting disabled people, but that depends on the nature of work the farmer has;

Sharing labour with other farms: some of the farmers found sharing labour with their neighbours as a valuable retention tool. Employees who would otherwise be laid‐off appreciated the opportunity to maintain steady work and wages. However, in order for such programs to work, there is a need for a well coordinated system in the farming community.

Looking for new immigrants arriving in the area was identified as one of the recruitment methods used. Farmers have recruited new immigrants from Mexico, Russia and the Philippines with successful results;

Use of word of mouth from relatives and neighbours has long been the method of choice for many farmers and this still works today; and

Using media such as radio and local newspapers ads at colleges and universities and through local chambers of commerce, immigrant organizations and employment services.

There were some suggestions on collaborating with other industries that use seasonal labour in times when agricultural operations are not in season, such as ski resorts. This eliminates the problem of lack of continuous work. One of the reasons why people do not want to work on farms is lack of continuous work. People want to have steady work even if it is temporary or seasonal. Some of the methods used in retaining labour included the following:

Treating workers well; empowering them by letting them make some of the decisions regarding farm work;

Flexible hours: giving flexible hours and time off on weekends or evenings proved to be very successful for some farmers;

Giving workers some of the produce from the farm; instils a sense of friendship and caring; and

Working with a few workers for a day and choosing the ones who have good work ethics.

90

References

Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada, Literature Review of Canadian Consumer Attitudes and Perceptions, May, 2007 Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada, Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals, http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC‐AAC/display‐afficher.do?id=1171305207040&lang=eng#s1, 2011 Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada, Canadian Maple Products Situation and Trends, September 2007 Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada, Statistical Overview of the Canadian Horticulture, 2008 Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada, Statistical Overview of the Canadian Special Crops Industry, 2008, 2009 Alliance of Ontario Food Processors, Workforce Ahead, A labour Study of Ontario’s food Processing Industries, 2004 Brantford‐Brant Economic Development Department, Economic Developments: www.brantfordbrant.com, 2010 Brantford‐Brant Economic Development Department, http://www.brantfordbrant.com/Workforce/AvailableLabourForce/Documents/LabourMarketReportJan2011.pdf Brantford‐Brant Economic Development Department, Economic Developments: (http://www.brantfordbrant.com/Workforce/EmploymentStatistics/Pages/default.aspx), 2010 Brown L R 2006 Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble, ed. by L Starke (New York: W W Norton) p 352, Canada Agricultural Human Resource Council, Labour Market Information on Recruitment and Retention in Primary Agriculture, CAHRC, 2010 Canadian Dairy Trade Bulletin, 2008 Culinary herbs guided, http://culinaryherbguide.com/types/mint.htm, 2008

David Sparling, John Cranfield, Spencer Hanson and Pamela Laughland, Bio‐products Development survey analysis, 2006. Diane J.F. Martz, “The farmer’s Share”: Compare the Share Update 2006, Centre for Rural Studies and Enrichment at St. Peter’s College, Muenster, Saskatchewan Farms Ontario, (http://www.farmsontario.ca/), 2010. F.O. Licht. "2007 and 2008 World Fuel Ethanol Production". Renewable Fuels Association. Archived from the original on 2008‐04‐08. http://web.archive.org/web/20080408091334/http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/. Retrieved 2010‐04‐17. F.O. Licht, cited in Renewable Fuels Association, "2009 Global Ethanol Production (Million Gallons)". Ethanol Industry Overlook 2010, pp. 2 and 22. 2010. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/‐/objects/pdf/outlook/RFAoutlook2010_fin.pdf?nocdn=1. Retrieved 2011‐02‐12. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The State of Food and Agriculture, Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Opportunities (2008) GPS on Tractors for Precision Farming, http://www.brighthub.com/electronics/gps/articles/49812.aspx#ixzz1ENsOZ400 , September, 2009 Health Canada, Definitions of Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals, http://www.hc‐sc.gc.ca/fn‐an/label‐etiquet/claims‐reclam/nutra‐funct_foods‐nutra‐fonct_aliment‐eng.php#2 , 2011 Keystone Agricultural Producers, “The Farmer’s share: From Grocery Store Back to the Farm Gate”, September, 2009 Ministry of Finance, Population Projections, http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/#tables Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Statistics, 2010

91

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Asian Vegetables Grown in Ontario

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/trade/ginseng.htm

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/98‐033.htm, 1998 Randy Duffy and Ken McEwan (University of Guelph) and Danny LeRoy (University of Lethbridge), BDO, 2011 Agricultural Outlook Summary Ridgetown College, Farm Market News, 2009 Soy20/20, Industrial Uses and Opportunities, http://www.soy2020.ca/pdfs/Industrial‐Uses‐and‐Opportunities.pdf Statistics Canada, http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census‐recensement/2006/dp‐pd/tbt/Rp‐eng.cfm Statistics Canada, Agricultural Community Profiles, 2001‐2006 Census Statistics Canada, Canada Business Patterns Data, 2008, 2009 and 2010 Statistics Canada: Field Crop Reporting Series, 2005‐2009 Sustainable Development Technology, Canada’s SD Renewable Fuels ‐ Biofuels Business Case “Supply Management and the Ontario Pork Industry”, a paper presented at the Ontario Pork meeting, September, 2009 Wikipedia, Anaerobic Digestion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion, 2010 Worldwatch Institute, 2007 Biofuels for Transportation: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture and Energy in the 21st Century edition, T W Institute (Washington, DC: The Worldwatch Institute) p 480

92

Appendices

Appendix1MedianAgeandAgeDistribution


Median Age and Age Distribution County/Province/National

1996 2001 2006 Percentage Change (%) 1996‐2001

Percentage Change (%) 1996‐2006


Brant County

Total population 29800 31669 34415 15.5 6.3 8.7

% of the population aged 0 to 14 years 22.3 20.5 18.7 ‐16.1 ‐8.1 ‐8.8

% of the population aged 15 to 64 years

64.2 65.4 66.8 4.0 1.9 2.1

% of the population aged 65 years and over

13.4 14.1 14.5 8.2 5.2 2.8

Median age 36.9 38.9 41.1 11.4 5.4 5.7

Ratio of age groups 0 to 14 years to 65 years and over

1.7 1.5 1.3 ‐23.5 ‐11.8 ‐13.3

Brantford

Total population 83626 86417 90192 7.9 3.3 4.4



64.1 65.5 66.7 4.1 2.2 1.8


14.3 14.6 14.6 2.1 2.1 0.0

Median age 35.4 37.5 39.1 10.5 5.9 4.3


1.5 1.4 1.3 ‐13.3 ‐6.7 ‐7.1

Ontario

Total population 10,753,573 11,410,046 12,160,282 13.1 6.1 6.6



67 67.5 68.3 1.9 0.7 1.2


12.4 12.9 13.6 9.7 4.0 5.4

Median age 35.2 37.2 39 10.8 5.7 4.8


1.7 1.5 1.3 ‐23.5 ‐11.8 ‐13.3

Canada

Total population 28,846,761 30,007,094 31,612,897 9.6 4.0 5.4



67.3 68 68.6 1.9 1.0 0.9


12.2 13 13.7 12.3 6.6 5.4

Median age 35.3 37.6 39.5 11.9 6.5 5.1


1.7 1.5 1.3 ‐23.5 ‐11.8 ‐13.3

93

Appendix2MedianIncome


Median Income/ County/Province/National

1996 2001 2006 Percentage Change (%) 1996‐2001



Brant County

Median total income for males 35,805 37,399 38,461 4.5 7.4 2.8

Median total income for females 18,555 22,190 21,783 19.6 17.4 ‐1.8

Median earnings for males working full year, full time

46,456 49,175 50,956 5.9 9.7 3.6

Median earnings for females working full year, full time

31,761 34,460 36,234 8.5 14.1 5.1

Median household income 62,707 66,674 69,146 6.3 10.3 3.7

Median economic family income 68,292 74,523 77,735 9.1 13.8 4.3

Brantford

Median total income for males 32,141 33,776 33,992 5.1 5.8 0.6

Median total income for females 17,827 18,935 20,752 6.2 16.4 9.6


45,165 46,063 46,564 2.0 3.1 1.1


31,350 32,451 33,487 3.5 6.8 3.2



Ontario

Median total income for males 33,453 35,411 34,454 5.9 3.0 ‐2.7



48,688 49,526 50,057 1.7 2.8 1.1


36,680 37,065 38,914 1.0 6.1 5.0



Median income for persons 15 years and over not in economic families

24,153 27,161 27,365 12.5 13.3 0.8

Canada

Median total income for males 30,891 32,823 32,224 6.3 4.3 ‐1.8



46,037 45,654 46,778 ‐0.8 1.6 2.5


34,130 34,488 35,830 1.0 5.0 3.9



94

Appendix3OperatorsofFarmswithOneOperator



Number of Farm Operators

Difference % Change % Distribution of Farm

Operators

% of Total Loss/Gain of Operators

Selected Variables 2001 2006 2001‐2006 2001‐2006 2001 2006 2001‐2006

Canada

Total Operators 152,320 136,510 ‐15,810 ‐10.4 100.0 100.0 100.0

Male 140,530 124,645 ‐15,885 ‐11.3 92.3 91.3 100.5

Female 11,785 11,855 70 0.6 7.7 8.7 ‐0.4

Under 35 years 14,285 10,250 ‐4,035 ‐28.2 9.4 7.5 25.5

35 to 54 years 77,360 64,885 ‐12,475 ‐16.1 50.8 47.5 78.9

55 years and over 60,675 61,375 700 1.2 39.8 45.0 ‐4.4

Ontario

Total operators 35,790 33,200 ‐2,590 ‐7.2 100.0 100.0 100.0

Male 33,055 30,225 ‐2,830 ‐8.6 92.4 91.0 109.3

Female 2,740 2,980 240 8.8 7.7 9.0 ‐9.3

Under 35 years 2,900 2,155 ‐745 ‐25.7 8.1 6.5 28.8

35 to 54 years 17,550 15,135 ‐2,415 ‐13.8 49.0 45.6 93.2

55 years and over 15,340 15,900 560 3.7 42.9 47.9 ‐21.6

Southern Ontario

Total operators 11,550 10,670 ‐880 ‐7.6 100.0 100.0 100.0

Male 10,765 9,790 ‐975 ‐9.1 93.2 91.8 110.8

Female 785 875 90 11.5 6.8 8.2 ‐10.2

Under 35 years 910 635 ‐275 ‐30.2 7.9 6.0 31.3

35 to 54 years 5,700 4,970 ‐730 ‐12.8 49.4 46.6 83.0

55 years and over 4,940 5,060 120 2.4 42.8 47.4 ‐13.6

Brant County

Total operators 435 445 10 2.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

Male 390 395 5 1.3 89.7 88.8 50

Female 45 55 10 22.2 10.3 12.4 50

Under 35 years 30 20 ‐10 ‐33.3 6.9 4.5 ‐100

35 to 54 years 205 195 ‐10 ‐4.9 47.1 43.8 ‐100

55 years and over 200 230 30 15.0 46.0 51.7 300

95

Appendix4OperatorsonFarmswithtwoorMoreOperators



Number of Farm Operators

Difference % Change % Distribution of Farm

Operators

% of Total Loss of

Operators

Selected Variables 2001 2006 2001‐2006 2001‐2006 2001 2006 2001‐2006

Brant County

Total operators 800 765 ‐35 ‐4.4 100.0 100.0 100

Male 480 455 ‐25 ‐5.2 60.0 59.5 71.4

Female 320 310 ‐10 ‐3.1 40.0 40.5 28.6

Under 35 years 85 55 ‐30 ‐35.3 10.6 7.2 85.7

35 to 54 years 415 395 ‐20 ‐4.8 51.9 51.6 57.1

55 years and over 300 315 15 5.0 37.5 41.2 ‐42.9

Southern Ontario

Total operators 16,590 16,300 ‐290 ‐1.7 100.0 100.0 100.0

Male 10,010 9,685 ‐325 ‐3.2 60.3 59.4 112.1

Female 6,580 6,615 35 0.5 39.7 40.6 ‐12.1

Under 35 years 1,895 1,430 ‐465 ‐24.5 11.4 8.8 160.3

35 to 54 years 8,865 8,320 ‐545 ‐6.1 53.4 51.0 187.9

55 years and over 5,830 6,550 720 12.3 35.1 40.2 ‐248.3

Ontario

Total operators 49,225 49,205 ‐20 ‐0.04 100.0 100.0 100

Male 29,160 28,650 ‐510 ‐1.7 59.2 58.2 2550

Female 20,065 20,560 495 2.5 40.8 41.8 ‐2475

Under 35 years 6,075 4,915 ‐1,160 ‐19.1 12.3 10.0 5800

35 to 54 years 26,600 25,135 ‐1,465 ‐5.5 54.0 51.1 7325

55 years and over 16,545 19,155 2,610 15.8 33.6 38.9 ‐13050

Canada

Total Operators 193,880 190,550 ‐3,330 ‐1.7 100.0 100.0 100.0

Male 114,490 111,570 ‐2,920 ‐2.6 59.1 58.6 87.7

Female 79,390 78,980 ‐410 ‐0.5 40.9 41.4 12.3

Under 35 years 25,635 19,670 ‐5,965 ‐23.3 13.2 10.3 179.1

35 to 54 years 108,210 99,270 ‐8,940 ‐8.3 55.8 52.1 268.5

55 years and over 60,035 71,600 11,565 19.3 31.0 37.6 ‐347.3

96

Appendix5FieldCropsAbsoluteandPercentageChange

Absolute Change in Number of Farms 2001‐2006

% Change in Number of Farms 2001‐2006

Commodity Brant County

Southern Ontario

Province of Ontario

Canada BrantCounty

Southern Ontario

Province of Ontario

Canada

Number of farms Number of farms

Total wheat 30 1,536 3,117 ‐12,035 17.1 27.1 27.0 ‐16.5

Winter wheat 25 1,344 2,716 3,067 15.2 25.0 28.4 25.5

Spring wheat 10 276 734 ‐12,577 76.9 79.5 29.3 ‐21.8

Durum wheat 22 ‐4,771 0.0 ‐36.1

Barley ‐17 ‐165 ‐2,359 ‐17,056 ‐53.1 ‐29.3 ‐31.5 ‐28.2

Oats ‐35 ‐49 ‐188 ‐4,240 ‐35.7 ‐4.6 ‐4.1 ‐9.3

Total rye ‐11 ‐192 ‐126 203 ‐10.2 ‐16.5 ‐8.8 4.3

Fall Rye ‐11 ‐205 ‐151 269 ‐10.2 ‐18.1 ‐10.9 6.4

Spring rye ‐1 13 25 ‐69 ‐25.0 31.7 44.6 ‐12.5

Mixed grain ‐3 ‐157 ‐1,663 ‐2,837 ‐13.6 ‐28.7 ‐23.5 ‐21.5

Corn for grain ‐68 ‐2,425 ‐4,940 ‐6,348 ‐20.5 ‐28.2 ‐25.7 ‐22.8

Corn for silage ‐1 ‐279 ‐961 ‐284 ‐1.3 ‐14.7 ‐10.3 ‐1.8

Alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures

‐25 ‐193 ‐1,739 ‐2,648 ‐8.2 ‐3.8 ‐6.6 ‐2.9

All other tame hay and fodder crops

‐1 ‐93 ‐1,161 ‐5,652 ‐1.3 ‐4.5 ‐8.2 ‐8.7

Forage seed for seed 2 16 74 ‐739 200.0 26.7 31.1 ‐19.4

Soybeans 25 ‐1,325 ‐2,535 ‐1,466 8.6 ‐12.6 ‐12.9 ‐5.9

Canola (rapeseed) 34 ‐227 ‐1,848 178.9 ‐52.5 ‐5.6

Flaxseed ‐2 31 ‐76 ‐40.0 64.6 ‐34.4

Sunflowers 15 48 ‐30 71.4 63.2 ‐3.2

Dry white beans 1 200 67 ‐256 100.0 89.3 6.8 ‐14.5

Other dry beans 5 23 11 ‐21 33.3 7.0 1.7 ‐1.2

Chick peas 0 2 ‐3,069 0.0 20.0 ‐74.2

Dry field peas ‐1 ‐2 14 ‐3,880 ‐50.0 ‐5.3 13.7 ‐27.1

Lentils ‐2,567 ‐43.6

Potatoes 5 6 90 ‐220 29.4 2.6 333.3 ‐5.7

Sugar beets 16 ‐440 12 18.8 ‐40.6 4.0

Ginseng 13 ‐19 ‐40 ‐91 25.0 ‐7.4 ‐13.9 ‐23.9

Triticale 2 31 537 66.7 8.5 68.5

Tobacco ‐29 ‐437 3,117 ‐497 ‐31.5 ‐40.6 27.0 ‐43.4

Buckwheat 2 5 2,716 ‐268 66.7 23.8 28.4 ‐28.1

Other field crops 2 ‐1 734 281 33.3 ‐0.7 29.3 20.5


97

Appendix6AreainCrops(Acres)

Absolute Change in Area (acres) 2001‐2006 Percentage Change in Area 2001‐2006

Commodity Brant County

Southern Ontario

Province of

Ontario Canada

Brant County

Southern Ontario

Province of

Ontario Canada

Area in crops Area in crops

Total wheat 5639 284,088 564,533 ‐2,570,181 61.2 89.8 84.2 ‐9.6

Winter wheat 5040 264,228 483,096 670,030 58.7 88.0 88.6 64.2

Spring wheat 18,589 77,425 ‐1,780,394 115.6 61.7 ‐8.7

Durum wheat 1,271 4,012 ‐1,459,817 0.0 0.0 ‐27.7

Barley ‐378 ‐3,584 ‐87,699 ‐2,487,978 ‐44.7 ‐23.5 ‐28.4 ‐21.4

Oats ‐771 4,745 30,282 428,683 ‐34.4 23.0 29.8 9.2

Total rye ‐5,665 ‐2,976 164,847 ‐9.2 ‐4.4 44.9

Fall Rye ‐304 ‐5,756 ‐3,347 169,194 ‐4.6 ‐9.6 ‐5.0 53.0

Spring rye ‐144 91 371 ‐4,347 ‐50.7 5.4 20.5 ‐9.1

Mixed grain ‐162 ‐2,681 ‐44,811 ‐65,380 ‐24.5 ‐20.5 ‐20.5 ‐7.3

Corn for grain ‐4981 ‐204,533 ‐425,163 ‐458,434 ‐12.5 ‐22.1 ‐21.2 ‐14.3

Corn for silage 276 1,379 1,395 104,163 9.2 2.0 0.4 17.9

Alfalfa and alfalfa mixtures ‐270 20,393 51,561 1,412,495 ‐1.7 9.5 3.2 12.7

All other tame hay and fodder crops

649 ‐11,098 7,050 205,899 31.1 ‐13.0 0.8 3.0

Forage seed for seed ‐137 3,235 ‐137,492 ‐4.5 35.6 ‐17.2

Soybeans 10194 ‐98,142 ‐92,582 295,416 34.3 ‐7.4 ‐4.1 11.0

Canola (rapeseed) 2,571 ‐17,864 3,075,814 469.2 ‐49.0 32.9

Potatoes 525 152 3,347 ‐17,200 19.3 1.2 55.7 ‐4.1

Sugar beets 2,676 12,420 59.7 34.8

Ginseng 1052 2,705 2,149 1,113 108.9 61.9 256.4 15.6

Triticale 59 ‐26,664 36,086 64.8 ‐45.7 30.9

Tobacco ‐2022 ‐26,465 192 ‐30,092 ‐35.1 ‐45.6 3.2 ‐48.5

Buckwheat ‐29 ‐84 10,123 ‐12,309 ‐37.7 ‐22.5 88.8 ‐27.4

Other field crops 64 1,743 564,533 92,538 53.3 46.8 84.2 69.5


98

Appendix7Fruit,NutsandBerries‐PercentageChangeinAreaandNumberofFarms

Percentage Change 2001‐2006 Percentage Distribution 2006

Fruit, berries & nuts trees

Brant County

Southern Ontario

Province of Ontario

Canada Brant County

Southern Ontario

Province of Ontario

Canada

Number of farms reporting

Total area of fruits, berries & nuts

‐18.6 ‐6.1 ‐4.7 2.4 100.0 100.0 ‐4.7 100.0

Apples ‐36.0 ‐16.6 ‐13.8 ‐10.7 45.7 31.2 ‐13.8 33.7

Grapes ‐50.0 ‐4.2 4.3 18.4 5.7 39.4 4.3 13.7

Pears ‐30.8 ‐25.4 ‐22.0 ‐12.1 25.7 23.2 ‐22.0 10.7

Peaches ‐19.4 ‐18.3 ‐12.0 19.5 ‐18.3 8.4

Plums and prunes 150.0 ‐18.7 ‐21.0 ‐9.0 14.3 18.6 ‐21.0 9.9

Cherries (sweet) ‐60.0 ‐15.4 ‐13.2 ‐3.6 5.7 15.6 ‐13.2 11.6

Cherries (sour) ‐16.7 ‐23.4 1.2 4.9 14.3 6.3 1.2 3.4

Strawberries 40.0 ‐1.5 ‐3.5 ‐5.5 40.0 16.1 ‐3.5 19.9

Raspberries ‐40.0 ‐15.1 ‐10.4 ‐1.3 17.1 12.2 ‐10.4 20.6

Apricots ‐28.5 ‐33.3 ‐20.8 5.6 ‐33.3 4.0

Blueberries ‐14.3 6.4 ‐28.0 23.7 17.1 5.0 ‐28.0 22.7

Saskatoon’s total area 12.5 1.9 5.5 1.1 1.9 7.2

Other fruits, berries and nuts

‐33.3 ‐1.2 8.3 8.9 5.7 9.6 8.3 10.7

Total area of fruits, berries and nuts

Total area fruit, berries and nut s

‐7.8 2.5 ‐2.1 5.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Apples total area ‐38.7 ‐11.8 ‐16.8 ‐14.4 31.5 21.3 31.7 20.1

Grapes total area 8.4 13.1 14.9 40.5 32.3 11.1

Pears total area ‐52.5 ‐4.1 ‐4.6 ‐5.8 4.6 4.8 4.0 1.3

Peaches total area 18.3 19.3 15.2 16.4 12.4 3.5

Plums & prunes total area

‐7.0 ‐8.7 ‐7.2 2.5 1.9 0.7

Cherries (sweet) total ‐4.0 10.0 25.6 1.9 4.0 1.6

Cherries (sour) total area

84.2 11.2 ‐4.3 11.0 36.1 5.3 1.5 1.1

Strawberries total area

26.9 ‐11.5 ‐15.2 ‐13.3 16.2 3.4 6.7 4.7

Raspberries total ‐50.0 ‐1.5 ‐11.2 ‐5.2 1.5 0.7 1.8 3.3

Apricots total area 10.6 ‐15.8 0.2 0.2

Blueberries total area 87.5 15.0 21.2 23.7 4.9 0.8 1.1 22.7

Saskatoon’s total area 3.3 9.7 0.1 1.2

Other fruits, berries and nuts total area

‐8.2 ‐14.0 5.1 2.1 2.0 1.6


99

Appendix8Livestock‐ChangeinNumberofFarmsandAnimals

Absolute Change in Number of Farms and Livestock Numbers 2001‐2006

Percentage Change in Number of Farms and Livestock Numbers 2001‐2006

Livestock Type Brant County

Southern Ontario

Province of Ontario

Canada Brant County

Southern Ontario

Province of

Ontario Canada

Number of farms


‐24 ‐527 ‐3,169 ‐12,165 ‐10.2 ‐11.0 ‐11.2 ‐10.0

Total cows ‐18 ‐324 ‐2,422 ‐10,779 ‐9.8 ‐9.1 ‐10.6 ‐9.9

Dairy cows ‐13 ‐278 ‐1,465 ‐4,396 ‐16.5 ‐19.6 ‐19.4 ‐20.1

Beef cows ‐3 3,066 ‐1,162 ‐7,066 ‐2.8 6.9 ‐7.2 ‐7.8

Total pigs ‐9 ‐188 ‐902 ‐3,975 ‐20.9 ‐13.7 ‐18.1 ‐25.7

Total sheep & lamb

‐6 ‐104 ‐570 ‐2,201 ‐19.4 ‐12.7 ‐14.3 ‐16.6

Total lamb ‐3 ‐74 ‐483 ‐2,044 ‐12.5 ‐11.0 ‐14.3 ‐18.3


‐1 ‐185 ‐909 ‐3,772 ‐1.2 ‐9.5 ‐10.9 ‐14.2

Turkeys ‐7 ‐28 ‐176 ‐1,002 ‐43.8 ‐11.8 ‐15.2 ‐24.0

Other poultry ‐2 ‐119 ‐494 ‐1,973 ‐7.7 ‐21.7 ‐21.4 ‐26.5

Livestock Numbers


‐1,430 ‐26,441 ‐158,080 222,078 ‐8.5 ‐7.0 ‐7.4 1.4

Total cows 26 284 ‐32,473 214,255 0.4 0.2 ‐4.4 3.7

Dairy cows 44 ‐2,782 ‐33,807 ‐64,941 0.9 ‐3.7 ‐9.3 ‐6.1

Beef cows ‐18 3,066 1,334 279,196 ‐0.9 6.9 0.4 5.8

Total pigs ‐265 251,709 493,246 1,084,360 ‐1.2 18.0 14.3 7.8

Total sheep & lamb

‐1,295 ‐7,967 ‐26,463 ‐119,571 ‐46.4 ‐14.0 ‐7.8 ‐9.5

Total lamb ‐555 ‐3,834 ‐6,841 ‐83,815 ‐43.3 ‐14.9 ‐4.5 ‐13.7


248,130 604,322 476,856 ‐844,736 69.3 3.5 1.1 ‐0.7

Turkeys ‐14,922 14,144 153,553 ‐424,557 ‐30.1 0.7 4.5 ‐5.2

Other poultry ‐796 1,338,106 1,243,821 ‐171,290 ‐40.1 404.0 86.8 ‐3.2


100

Appendix9PerCapitaDisappearanceofPorkandBeefinCanadaYear Per Capita Pork Disappearance (retail

basis –Kg.) Per Capita Beef Disappearance (retail

basis –Kg.)

1980 24.7 28.6

1981 23.9 29.4

1982 21.9 29.1

1983 22.3 29.0

1984 21.6 27.6

1985 21.9 28.0

1986 21.1 27.8

1987 20.8 26.4

1988 21.2 26.4

1989 21.7 25.7

1990 19.8 24.7

1991 19.7 24.3

1992 21.6 23.6

1993 21.0 22.7

1994 21.6 23.1

1995 21.1 23.1

1996 19.8 23.0

1997 19.3 23.0

1998 21.8 23.3

1999 22.9 23.8

2000 21.8 23.4

2001 22.0 22.4

2002 21.1 22.3

2003 19.1 23.7

2008 20.3 22.5

2005 17.5 22.1

2006 17.8 21.8

2007 18.9 22.4

2008 17.9 21.4

Source: Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada: “The Canadian Red meat Industry”, Red meat market information, 2009.

101

Appendix10TotalGrossReceipts


County, Regional, Provincial & National

Number of Farms Reporting

Difference % Change % Distribution of Farms Reporting

Total Gross Farm Receipts 2000 2005 2000‐2005 2000‐2005 2000 2005

Brant County

Total Number of Farms 817 818 1 0.1 100.0 100.0

Under $10,000 190 165 ‐25 ‐13.2 23.3 20.2

$10,000 to ‐$24,999 126 138 12 9.5 15.4 16.9

$25,000 to $49,999 100 101 1 1.0 12.2 12.3

$50,000 to $99,999 96 119 23 24.0 11.8 14.5

$100, 000 to $249,999 136 123 ‐13 ‐9.6 16.6 15.0

$250,000 to $499,999 93 88 ‐5 ‐5.4 11.4 10.8

Over $500,000 76 84 8 10.5 9.3 10.3

Southern Ontario

Total Number of Farms 19,631 18,665 ‐966 ‐4.9 100.0 100.0

Under $10,000 3516 3,296 ‐220 ‐6.3 17.9 17.7

$10,000 to ‐$24,999 3,358 3,202 ‐156 ‐4.6 17.1 17.2

$25,000 to $49,999 2,799 2,616 ‐183 ‐6.5 14.3 14.0

$50,000 to $99,999 2,511 2,454 ‐57 ‐2.3 12.8 13.1

$100, 000 to $249,999 3,562 2,963 ‐599 ‐16.8 18.1 15.9

$250,000 to $499,999 2,223 2,075 ‐148 ‐6.7 11.3 11.1

Over $500,000 1,662 2059 397 23.9 8.5 11.0

Ontario

Total Number of Farms 59,728 57,211 ‐2,517 ‐4.2 100.0 100.0

Under $10,000 15,370 14,500 ‐870 ‐5.7 25.7 25.3

$10,000 to ‐$24,999 11378 10,828 ‐550 ‐4.8 19.0 18.9

$25,000 to $49,999 7862 7,397 ‐465 ‐5.9 13.2 12.9

$50,000 to $99,999 6542 6,521 ‐21 ‐0.3 11.0 11.4

$100, 000 to $249,999 9587 7,965 ‐1,622 ‐16.9 16.1 13.9

$250,000 to $499,999 5493 5,589 96 1.7 9.2 9.8

Over $500,000 3496 4411 915 26.2 5.9 7.7

Canada

Total Number of Farms 246,923 229,373 ‐17,550 ‐7.1 100.0 100.0

Under $10,000 54,166 50,138 ‐4,028 ‐7.4 21.9 21.9

$10,000 to ‐$24,999 42,139 38,254 ‐3,885 ‐9.2 17.1 16.7

$25,000 to $49,999 34,145 30,608 ‐3,537 ‐10.4 13.8 13.3

$50,000 to $99,999 35,255 31,422 ‐3,833 ‐10.9 14.3 13.7

$100, 000 to $249,999 47,079 39,971 ‐7,108 ‐15.1 19.1 17.4

$250,000 to $499,999 21,396 22,837 1,441 6.7 8.7 10.0

Over $500,000 12,743 16,143 3,400 26.7 5.2 7.0