Marketing Boards
As the saying goes, 'what got us here, won't get us there.'
Historically, farmers have organized into marketing collectives – co-operatives, councils, boards, and associations. Back when the North American Plains were settled, scarce information and distances to market prevented farmers from accessing information about supply, demand, and prices.
Selling blind and at risk of being taken advantage of by front-line buyers of their goods, farmer co-operatives became a common solution to increase market power and price control. In the burgeoning commodity markets for farm products, co-operatives could gather enough volume to influence better pricing outcomes than their members could in dealing alone.
Over time, as the agricultural commodity industries matured, farm and trade groups formed into associations and councils to undertake broader market messaging, and other work that benefited multiple stakeholders, such as seed breeding and policy work. In cases where the government would stand to benefit, mandatory marketing boards were established.
We find ourselves at an interesting time in the history of modern agriculture currently, with market demand segmenting and collective marketing entities in some, but not all cases, opening up. As entrenched lobby groups dig in their heels on outdated messaging, emerging new markets struggle to source from the specific farms they want to support.
The shame in this is that both positive environmental externalities, and new economic growth opportunities are being missed. For example, in Canada’s supply-management sector (dairy, eggs, chicken and turkey farms), smaller licensed farmers feel like they’re being pushed out for not scaling up, and new farmers face strict limits on generating revenue.
This includes access to land and marketing channels for small farms, and new entrants like refugees and other marginalized communities. On the demand side, we see sizable and growing grocery retail demand for animal-based proteins raised regeneratively, which today cannot be met with a consistent enough supply.
Existing marketing boards have been silent on these issues. According to The Canadian Encyclopedia, “Lawmakers passed the (Farm Products Marketing) Act in response to a series of crises in the 1960s… Some processors and supermarkets had used their power to drive down the prices they paid farmers. This had led to highly volatile markets and costly federal support payments to farmers.”
To prevent having to bail these farms out in the future, production quotas were allocated, as well as price controls and market stability. To ensure a consistent supply of fluid milk and fresh eggs everywhere, production is rigidly managed for farms that hold quota.
There are programs for allocating quota to new entrants, but according to sources involved in the process, they are poorly managed. In most if not all cases, new quota is allocated to the children of existing quota-holders, enabling family-owned and operated dairy and poultry operations to expand.
The Canadian Encyclopedia goes on the explain that this is a real goal of supply management. “Supporters of supply management argue that the system… gives farmers the stability they need to make investments in their businesses.” However, there is no evidence to support the next argument in favor of supply management, that “these investments can strengthen Canada’s rural communities.”
Plowing stable profits back into bigger and more efficient livestock barns is what some would call ‘progress’ and ‘innovation.’ Others (including this author who was raised on a supply managed egg farm) find much refreshment in raising backyard hens, tending small flocks on pasture, picking fresh eggs out of the grass, selling some to neighbors and sharing the rest with family and friends.
The regulations on small unlicensed farm enterprises are onerous enough to keep all by the hobbyists and the extremely talented direct marketers from operating on a small scale successfully. It should fall to the governing Farm Products Marketing Councils, who have a mandate to support differentiated market lines including smaller artisanal farm products, but these government appointees rarely have enough skin in the game to tackle hard questions and new challenges.
From a governance perspective, it’s a hot mess and powder keg. Once the authorities get around to requiring Scope 3 emissions reporting – including from the production of feedgrains that barn-raised livestock are fed – supply managed farms in their current form will be at risk.
Summary
Just for a moment, let’s set aside the fact that all the power is in the hands of incumbents determined to preserve the status quo. Because at this same time, new models for raising eggs, chicken, and dairy regeneratively are working right now.
The best part about these smaller-scale, new regenerative production systems is the fractional cost of the capital needed to set up and enter the market. The lower infrastructure and operating cost scenario mean that more people can be employed, and more farms can get to work to increase local supplies of food produced in nature.
Perhaps it’s time for new marketing boards to be set up, to exclusively handle regeneratively-raised dairy and poultry products. The research and cost to adopt digital food traceability technology, and to oversee ecological outcome standards compliance, are just 2 of the many areas where costs could be shared and benefit would accrue to the whole regenerative farming community.