Quality key to sweet corn success
By CHRISTINA SELBY
St. Agatha, Waterloo county farmer Howard Herrle has been growing and selling sweet corn for 35 years, and he let growers in on some of his marketing methods at the recent Ontario Horticultural Crops Conference."We all know that most farmers are excellent growers, but we are told, and we know, that many farmers are not good marketers," he said.
Herrle's focus is on producing a quality product for his on-site market, educating his customers about the products and providing excellent service.
"It's important that we establish our market long before we plant the seed," he said. The Herrle family grows about 25 varieties, most in test only, on 120 acres. "I think it's important that we do our own trials and choose for ourselves what works best for us," Herrle said. They produce four or five main season varieties, always including a sugar-enhanced variety, a supersweet, a yellow and a bi-coloured.
When it comes to quality, "you can only fool a person once," he said. "When you fill up the basket, regardless of the product, make sure the quality of the product at the bottom of the basket is equal to the quality at the top of the basket.
"Corn in our market is always sold the same day it is picked," Herrle said. He warned farmers not to be tempted to sell over-mature corn. "We must sacrifice quantity to retain quality."
For customers who don't understand the terminology, "we post a sign on the bins for the different categories showing the customer what to expect from the different varieties such as texture, colour, flavour." Customers are told that the sugar-enhanced varieties are sweet and tender and the supersweets are sweeter and more crunchy.
"For years we've been telling our customer that colour means nothing, that the importance is whether it's a sugar-enhanced or a supersweet." Growers who are educating their consumers are getting the best price for their product, he said.
"There are customers walking into your store every day who've never bought corn before. Some of them ask some pretty silly questions and you've probably heard them all. We better be prepared with some answers based on facts."
In today's business environment, personal service and knowledge are extras a farmer/marketer can offer customers to differentiate them from the supermarkets. "Today's consumer is continually demanding more and better quality. People today expect to have money back guarantees with no questions asked." The reality is that farmers can't compete with supermarkets on price. "And we've been told many times that you never get involved in that war because that's a battle we can never win," said Herrle.
Some people appreciate the increased sweetness of the supersweets while others prefer the sugar enhanced. "So what do you do when a customer comes in and tells you the corn he bought the other day was tough? You lead him over to the corn bins and you explain to him that he likely selected his corn out of the supersweet bin when what he really wanted was the sugar-enhanced variety." The result is a satisfied customer who'll be back for more.
What do you do when a customer tells you he found a corn borer in a cob of corn and he threw the whole bag of corn in the garbage? "You replace the corn," said Herrle. Why should good marketers do this? "Because anything less than this would not be acceptable if we are to remain competitive from a quality and service point of view," he said.
Opinions differ on the value of advertising, said Herrle. Farmers can spend a lot of money on radio, newspaper and even television advertising, but if the market doesn't meet consumers' expectations, it's just money down the drain, he said. "Our advertising has brought them there, but will they be back? Did someone greet them with a smile? Did someone stand there and answer their questions and try to help them?"
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
back
Profits as sweet as potatoes
The radio stations were telling them to stay home, but an early-March snow storm wasn't enough to keep 80 people from plowing their way to a sweet potato information day at the Simcoe OMAFRA office."We've had tremendous interest," says Jody Bodnar, OMAFRA vegetable specialist. "The enthusiasm comes from the real possibility that it's a money making crop."
Last year, Ontario farmers grew about 50 acres of the orange vegetable, which claims no relation to the potato or even the yam. Sweet potatoes are often marketed as yams, but the yam originated in West Africa and Asia. Sweet potato aficionados have traced the confusion back to the slave trade, when African slaves mistook the sweet potato for their native "nyami."
But there doesn't appear to be any confusion about the economics of growing sweet potatoes. Last year Ontario retailers and wholesalers imported the equivalent of more than 10,000 acres of the uniquely sweet flavoured potato from production hotbeds such as North Carolina, where 36,000 acres were planted last year, Louisiana and Caribbean countries such as Jamaica.
Bodnar says sweet potatoes have been in trial off and on at the Simcoe research station since the early 1960s, but for some reason the crop, despite favourable growing conditions in Ontario, has never taken off.
Bodnar believes that's about to change. "It's good money and there's no competition to speak of. Somebody's left the gate open on this thing." There's no reason Ontario growers can't produce a potato as good or better than those grown in North Carolina, he says.
Sweet potatoes grow well in sand or sandy loam in areas with 3000 corn heat units or more, Bodnar says. That means the crop should flourish anywhere along the north shore of Lake Erie, from Niagara to Windsor and Harrow. Trials at Simcoe show sweet potatoes in the province should average 200 40-pound cardboard boxes per acre, the industry's standard unit of measurement. Boxes typically wholesale in the $20 range to produce about $4,000 per acre in gross revenue.
Sweet potato retail prices usually range from 99 cents to $1.29 per pound and wholesale prices move from $22 to $26 per box. "I think $20 is a fairly safe bet," says Bodnar. Growers could net up to $2,000 per acre, he says.
The biggest expense for growers is plants. Sweet potatoes when laid in a greenhouse bed and covered with a thin layer of soil produce sprouts or shoots that are pulled from the potatoes and planted in rows much like tomatoes or peppers. Between 10,000 and 12,000 plants are required per acre. Transplants can be purchased from North Carolina for $50 per thousand or $500 per acre.
Bodnar says the crop thrives in ground with a pH between 6.0 and 6.5 and requires about 40 pounds of nitrogen per acre, "a lot less than the 200 pounds per acre table stock potato growers are using." It's a fairly easy cr op to establish and doesn't require any spraying for insects or diseases. "They respond to moisture like most root crops, but they're not going to do well with wet feet," he says.
As the crop is susceptible to frost, Bodnar advises a late-May, early-June planting and a mid-September harvest. The crop is transplanted much like tobacco and can be harvested with a modified potato digger.
Sweet potatoes can be sent directly to the fresh market, but if growers intend to market the crop after Christmas, the potatoes have to be cured to help set the skin and prevent skinning and bruising. For curing, potatoes have to be subjected to high heat, between 28 and 30 C, and humidity for five to seven days. The heat can then be lowered to between 14 to 16 C for storage, but high humidity levels must be maintained.
Bodnar advises farmers looking to take the sweet potato plunge to start small - one or two acres. Before planting, farmers should also visit their local supermarkets to see if produce managers would be interested in local supplies. He notes that one grower has supplied product for Sobeys stores in the Simcoe area for the past 10 years. Other marketing options include farmers' markets and the Toronto Food Terminal. If the crop takes off, Bodnar says growers could find some benefit in forming a marketing organization. - Bernard Tobin
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
back
Caldwell issue heightens business resolve
South Kent farmers are deploying a wide range of tactics to protect their livelihoodsBY TOM BUTTON
Farms succeed or fail based on their long-term planning. It's critical to pick the right time to buy more land or to build a new barn. It's essential to know how long it will take a new acquisition to pay for itself.Yet when Henry Vantil and dozens of his neighbours south of Blenheim look into the future, all they have are questions, not answers.
Last December, the federal government announced it will help the C#aldwell First Nation buy 4,500 acres in order to create a new reserve in south Kent. The area's farmers - some with family deeds going back five generations - weren't notified or consulted. Five months later, that hasn't changed.
What has changed, though, is that area farmers are deploying a full range of business and professional tactics to protect their livelihoods.
"I'm not selling," Vantil says. With wife Joan and their four children, Vantil manages their 110 farrow-to-finish operation on 84 acres of some of Canada's most productive sandy loam soil. "We can't sell...we'd be lucky to get 50 cents on the dollar for our buildings."
If he can't afford to leave, can he afford to stay? "That's what we're trying to find out," he says. "Right now, it's hard to tell what all the long-term impacts will be."
Nearby farmer Mike De Brouwer grows specialty crops, including tomatoes and seed corn. He fears that drainage systems may be crippled - the Ontario Drainage A#ct may not apply to federally administered Indian land. Agricultural zoning policies, including minimum separation distances, couldn't be enforced, he believes, because reserves aren't subject to municipal bylaws. There are doubts, too, whether farmers would be protected by right-to-farm legislation.
The federal Indian affairs department says the Caldwells came to Canada before 1763 and settled near Point Pelee. The band was promised part of Point Pelee, but was somehow left out of a 1790 treaty when the English bought much of southwestern Ontario for £1,200.
In 1973, the Caldwells filed claim to Point Pelee; last fall, Indian Affairs Minister Jane Stewart announced a negotiated settlement. The Caldwells will get $23.4 million, including $16 million to purchase land, with the rest for economic development and other spending. Band members will vote mid-May whether to accept the deal.
The Caldwell reserve would make history because instead of expropriating a block of land, the Caldwells are being asked to buy parcels when they come up for sale over the next 25 years, whether they're abutting or not.
That approach hurts agriculture two ways, the farmers say. The patchwork pattern would increase the number of farms that border on reserve land, exposing more fields to potential land use conflicts and drainage interruptions. Second, the 25-year time frame means farmers wouldn't know where to locate new buildings for fear they'd be too close to future reserve development.
Within weeks of the announcement, local farmers and residents had raised $25,000 from donations to fund the Chatham-Kent Community Network. They rented office space and equipment in Blenheim and hired administrator Brian Lindsay to help the long chain of volunteers keep connected.
Since then, they've targeted the media as well as federal, provincial and municipal politicians, and have put together think-tanks to explore the potential implications of a Caldwell reserve - ranging from farm impacts to the threat to endangered wildlife species should the band be given free rein to develop the shores and marshes of Rondeau Bay.
At the same time, a group of about 35 area landowners have taken a complementary business tack. They've bought shares in the South Kent Property Development Company to compete with the federally bankrolled Caldwells.
The buying group, chaired by former vegetable board chairman Hank Vander Pol, now president of Rol-Land Farms, has already obtained first right of refusal on 20,000 acres. While the main goal is to prevent a large-scale reserve, Vander Pol makes it clear the group also plans to turn a profit from its land investments, even at the going rate of $5,000 an acre.
The buying group's shareholders will decide which properties to buy, and how to manage them. That could include using the first right of refusal to acquire the land, then selling it either to a member or other party.
Meanwhile, Lindsay says, the community network has worked its way through a wide array of scenarios to find a negotiating position that might let farmers and the reserve co-exist. Key planks include limiting the time frame for land purchases to five years, and stipulating that drainage and planning laws apply to any reserve land.
The political process has been very frustrating, De Brouwer says. For instance, Ontario Agriculture Minister Noble Villeneuve has told the group it's up to Ottawa to decide whether drainage laws will apply. A spokesman for Villenueve's office confirms, "We're really just spectators."
An important lesson, De Brouwer says, is to be persistent. The group, for instance, is supporting local Liberal MPP Pat Hoy's findings that Queen's Park could play a key role in negotiating a settlement, and it's earned support from Liberal MP Jerry Pickard. Early April, Chatham-Kent council appointed a panel, including past Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Jack Wilkinson, to help devise a strategy for the reserve talks.
Within the next few weeks, the community network also expects to meet with Doug Forbes, associate regional director general for the Indian affairs department - it's first face-to-face talks with senior staffers aimed at finding common ground.
The group has also had to fend off allegations of racism. "Our problem isn't with the Caldwells; its with the way the federal government is managing the issue," Vantil says. "I'm not racist."
Will the farmers' strategies work? "If Ottawa decides there's going to be a reserve, that's what's going to happen," says Lindsay. "In that case, our goal has to be to ensure that it happens in a way we can live with." De Brouwer is hoping Ottawa will give the Caldwells a lump sum payment instead of creating a patchwork reserve in southern Kent. Vantil also wants the uncertainty to end. "We need to know what the future is going to be."
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
back
New coverages, new deals
It doesn't take a well-publicized natural disaster of the magnitude of January 1998's ice storm for farmers to appreciate the value of insuring non-crop assets. Localized tornadoes, hail and wind storms - they're threats to any business with buildings and equipment.Question is, has your farm insurance kept pace with recent changes in policy design, and does your agent or broker represent or have access to insurers offering these innovative features?
The collapse of farm buildings during the ice storm exposed a flaw in traditional farm policies, says Murray Mellow of Mellow Insurance Ltd., Bolton. Mellow - raised on a cash crop/dairy farm - was a dairyman and past president of the Ontario Jersey Club and United Breeders before entering the insurance business. His brother still runs the family farm.
The traditional policy, says Mellow, covers what the industry calls "named perils." Simply put, that means if damage was incurred by something that wasn't named in the policy as triggering a payout, the policyholder was out of pocket. On farms, continues Mellow, "the named perils - with slight variations from company to company - tend to be confined to fire, falling objects such as trees, impact by aircraft or land vehicle, lightning, riot, windstorm, hail, explosion, smoke and vandalism. What some found with ice storm damage is that their buildings collapsed due to a freak combination of high winds and the heavy loading of ice on the roof." The named peril - wind - was responsible for only a portion of the damage, and the payouts reflected that.
New policies reflect a trend to what's called "all-perils coverage," says Mellow, "which means if it's not excluded in writing, it's covered."
Typical exclusions, says Mellow, include illegally acquired property; animals, birds or fish other than farm livestock; aircraft or air-cushion vehicles; books of account - essentially unpaid bills; and automobiles, trucks and snowmobiles (which tend to be covered under separate vehicle policies anyway); logging and foresting equipment; and vacant premises.
Newer policies also offer replacement cost rather than depreciated value of the damaged or destroyed asset. "This has not been available except in the last few years," says Mellow, adding it's a boon to farmers whose operations may have added a number of outbuildings over the years. Premium costs for the all-perils replacement cost policies, he says, don't exceed the old-style policies either, as insurance companies implement efficiencies just like any other business and pass savings along to customers.
Beyond looking at how buildings and equipment are covered, Mellow says farmers should think about loss-of-income coverage.
"In a dairy operation, for example, livestock and property insurance can rebuild a herd, the barn and a milkhouse in two to six months after a catastrophe. But that doesn't mean any income is coming in in that period."
Using an example of a couple whose milk cheque is between $10,000 and $12,000 a month, Mellow says that, depending on the insurer, it's possible to obtain insurance that will pay out up to $70,000 in income over a six-month time frame for an annual premium of between $200 and $300. - Richard Charteris
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
back