Planting the seeds for a sustainable future - City of Kamloops
Planting the seeds for a sustainable future - City of Kamloops Planting the seeds for a sustainable future - City of Kamloops
Change in Farm EnterprisesThe local agriculture industry has shifted over the years (Figure 6) and will continue to change. The most notable shifts are inginseng and cattle and calves. The ginseng sector was declining prior to 2006 and has continued to decline since then, fromfour producers with 91 ha in 2006 to one producer with undisclosed production in 2011. Total cattle and calves have declined -production dropped 10.5% and producer numbers dropped 25.4%. Potatoes are reported as "field crops"; the area inproduction was not reported in either Census period but producer numbers increased. Vegetable production declined butproducers numbers increased (i.e. farms became smaller).Figure 7 – Changes in the number of producers and total production between 2006 and 2011 for various types of farms(Source: 2011 and 2006 Census of Agriculture Area P)HorsesPigsSheep & LambsCattle & CalvesGreenhouseNursery, sod, Xmas treesPotatoesFruits, nuts, berriesVegetables-18.5%-19.3%-53.7%-10.0%-21.6%-17.9%-10.5%-25.4%12.5%20.0%20.0%-16.7%0.0%-41.5%-10.3%-10.7%50.0%ProductionFarms107.7%The trend identified inFigure 7 indicates the needto better support farming inthe community and region.While the economy has arole to play, strategies andactions that the City cansupport will be identified bythe AAP to help reverse thenegative change inproduction.-75.0%-75.0%Ginseng-100.0% -50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0%CITY OF KAMLOOPS 32
ECONOMICSArea Gross Farm ReceiptsGross farm receipts for Area P, for the last two census periods, are shown in Table 7. The data is from the production yearprior to the Census. As such, it may not represent average returns for area farms. Losses reported on farms that are notprofit-oriented tend to pull the average down.Table 7 – Gross Farm Receipts and gross margins - comparison of 2011 Census (for 2010 production year) and 2006 (for 2005 production year).Area P Gross Farm Receipts Operating Expenses Gross Margin (Total) Gross Margin (%) Gross Margin (average/farm)2011 $12,580,026 $12,868,260 -$288,234 -2.91% -$1,1622006 $20,011,871 $21,349,006 -$1,337,135 -6.82% -$4,892The decline in Gross Farm Receipts is likely related to the following:BSE, or Mad Cow Disease, impacted the beef industry significantly during the two Census periods. In 2005, Albertacow/calf returns were estimated at plus $60; in 2010, cow calf returns were approximately $-60 per head; andGinseng production declined steadily, starting before the 2005 production year.ProfitabilityThe following sections describe a number of factors that affect profitability of farmsand how the City of Kamloops' agriculture sector fares compared to other areas.Farm profitability, or lack thereof, is the major underlying issue facing agriculture.If farms were more profitable, many of the other issues identified in this planningprocess would not exist.Farm profitability or lack thereof, is themajor underlying issue facing agriculture. Iffarms were more profitable, many of theother issues identified in this planningprocess would not exist.CITY OF KAMLOOPS 33
- Page 1 and 2: CITY OF KAMLOOPSPlanting the seeds
- Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis report was pre
- Page 7 and 8: WHY DO WE NEED AN AGRICULTURE AREA
- Page 9 and 10: EXPECTED OUTCOMESThe overarching ex
- Page 11: (l) an activity, other than grazing
- Page 14 and 15: Due to topography, existing growth,
- Page 16 and 17: At one time, there were 16 dairies
- Page 18 and 19: Urban agriculture connects urban dw
- Page 20 and 21: There are two general types of cons
- Page 22 and 23: Ranchers in Kamloops depend on Crow
- Page 24 and 25: Plant Hardiness ZonesThe Plant Hard
- Page 26 and 27: The Importance of Ranch and RangeKa
- Page 28 and 29: AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITYFigure 3 - C
- Page 30 and 31: Table 5 - Owned and Rented (Owned v
- Page 32 and 33: Livestock Use (by parcels) 74% (150
- Page 36 and 37: Gross Margin ($ per farm)Gross Marg
- Page 38 and 39: Table 8 - Value of Farm Capital and
- Page 40 and 41: cooling activities would increase t
- Page 42 and 43: MarketingMarketing is both a hindra
- Page 44 and 45: PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL TRENDSThe 1
- Page 46 and 47: Canadian Food Inspection AgencyThe
- Page 48 and 49: Farm Practices Protection ActThe Fa
- Page 50 and 51: The Land Conservancy of BCThe Land
- Page 52 and 53: Zoning By-law No. 5-1-2001A section
- Page 54 and 55: Dam inspection obligations;Environm
- Page 56 and 57: SUPPORTING INDUSTRY DIVERSIFICATION
- Page 58 and 59: Trespassing; andClimate change.Due
- Page 60 and 61: 20. Agricultural or Multi-Purpose E
- Page 62 and 63: CITY OF KAMLOOPS 60
- Page 64 and 65: CITY OF KAMLOOPS 62
- Page 66 and 67: CITY OF KAMLOOPS 64
- Page 68 and 69: processed-product producers in the
- Page 70 and 71: Support Services andProducts for Fo
- Page 72 and 73: MAPSMap 1 - Food Producer Map - Cit
ECONOMICSArea Gross Farm ReceiptsGross farm receipts <strong>for</strong> Area P, <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> last two census periods, are shown in Table 7. The data is from <strong>the</strong> production yearprior to <strong>the</strong> Census. As such, it may not represent average returns <strong>for</strong> area farms. Losses reported on farms that are notpr<strong>of</strong>it-oriented tend to pull <strong>the</strong> average down.Table 7 – Gross Farm Receipts and gross margins - comparison <strong>of</strong> 2011 Census (<strong>for</strong> 2010 production year) and 2006 (<strong>for</strong> 2005 production year).Area P Gross Farm Receipts Operating Expenses Gross Margin (Total) Gross Margin (%) Gross Margin (average/farm)2011 $12,580,026 $12,868,260 -$288,234 -2.91% -$1,1622006 $20,011,871 $21,349,006 -$1,337,135 -6.82% -$4,892The decline in Gross Farm Receipts is likely related to <strong>the</strong> following:BSE, or Mad Cow Disease, impacted <strong>the</strong> beef industry significantly during <strong>the</strong> two Census periods. In 2005, Albertacow/calf returns were estimated at plus $60; in 2010, cow calf returns were approximately $-60 per head; andGinseng production declined steadily, starting be<strong>for</strong>e <strong>the</strong> 2005 production year.Pr<strong>of</strong>itabilityThe following sections describe a number <strong>of</strong> factors that affect pr<strong>of</strong>itability <strong>of</strong> farmsand how <strong>the</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kamloops</strong>' agriculture sector fares compared to o<strong>the</strong>r areas.Farm pr<strong>of</strong>itability, or lack <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong>, is <strong>the</strong> major underlying issue facing agriculture.If farms were more pr<strong>of</strong>itable, many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r issues identified in this planningprocess would not exist.Farm pr<strong>of</strong>itability or lack <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong>, is <strong>the</strong>major underlying issue facing agriculture. Iffarms were more pr<strong>of</strong>itable, many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r issues identified in this planningprocess would not exist.CITY OF KAMLOOPS 33
Change language