Definition of farm needs some work - WP editorial

BEFORE analysis gets too far underway regarding the 2006 Census of Agriculture, consider what Statistics Canada uses as the definition of a farm: any operation that produces agricultural products with the intention of selling them.

That’s the sole criteria.

The man who raises a few extra chickens to sell to his neighbours has the same classification as the man who runs a poultry operation that grosses more than $1 million annually. The woman who sells the annual calf crop from one cow counts the same as the feedlot operator who buys and sells thousands of animals each year. They’re farmers.

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

Put them under the same umbrella and one begins to see the folly of trying to design farm policies that will guarantee all of them a profitable, agriculturally based income.

The report released last week contained few surprises. The number of farms and the number of farmers continue to shrink. The average age of producers continues to rise. About 20 percent of Canadian farms account for 80 percent of farm income. And only 55.8 percent of farms make enough gross income to cover their cost of production.

Similar statistics have appeared in previous reports. They prove that federal agriculture policy has not adequately addressed the needs of most producers.

Something more innovative is clearly needed, and that innovation might start with a more realistic definition for a farm.

For statistical purposes, the current definition is maintained so apples can be compared to apples. For agricultural policy purposes, the definition is too broad for the creation of workable policies that will strengthen Canada’s vital agricultural sector – the huge economic engine that feeds the people and bolsters the economy in immeasurable ways.

However, even with its arguably flawed definition, the farm census provides useful data to illustrate perennial challenges regardless of an operation’s size.

For example, it shows the cost of products and tools used to farm rose 8.6 percent since 2001, while the price farmers receive for goods rose only 1.7 percent.

And it shows that fuel and fertilizer prices both rose by 35 percent since 2001and pesticide prices by 19 percent. The general rate of inflation, however, was 12.2 percent over the same period. It’s difficult for farms to remain profitable with those kinds of figures.

Among the most troubling statistics was the continuing decrease in number of farmers younger than 35, down 25 percent from 2001. These younger farmers now constitute 9.1 percent of all farm operators.

These figures show that, no matter what the size of the farm, younger people either do not see farming as an attractive career, or they have difficulty getting into the business if they want to.

In the latter case, that’s one area that improved government policy could quickly address.

As for the other statistics, they are useful when analyzed with the definition in mind. But the census could be more useful if that definition were revised.

Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.