Overview of Ontario Agriculture, Population and Labour Statistics

Overview of Ontario Agriculture, Population and Labour Statistics Prepared for: Ontario Pork Industry Council Prepared by: Lynn Marchand Ken McEwan June 2008

Acknowledgements The report Human Resource Needs Assessment for the Pork Industry was made possible due to support of the Ontario Pork Industry Council (OPIC) and funding through Employment Ontario. Also Sue Selves, OPIC HR Project Co-ordinator, provided support in the development, distribution and collection of survey questionnaires. Special thanks and appreciation are extended to the many swine producers, swine farm employees, swine industry input suppliers and potential swine industry employees that took the time to complete the survey instruments. Their participation has helped to provide a better understanding of human resource management issues facing the swine industry. Finally, appreciation is extended to Randy Duffy for editing the document, Carolyn Lucio for her word processing skills and to any others who assisted with this project in some way. This Employment Ontario project is funded by the Government of Canada.

1.0 Background The agriculture industry has undergone many changes in the last few years and perhaps the biggest change has been the trend to fewer but larger farms. The raising of pigs is no exception. For many farm families this has resulted in the need to hire additional nonfamily individuals to fulfill labour requirements on these large farms. Recruiting people to agricultural jobs has long been considered difficult. Several factors have been offered as reasons for this including the following: low pay relative to other industries; long hours of work; jobs are physically demanding; and the location of farm often away from urban centres and therefore smaller population to draw on. 1.1 Purpose This document is considered to be an addendum to a larger report entitled Human Resource Needs Assessment for the Pork Industry (L. Marchand, J. Boekhorst, and K. McEwan; University of Guelph - Ridgetown Campus) completed in January 2008. The specific objectives of that report were the following: a) Determine the human resource needs (i.e. skills, training) of various stakeholders within the pork industry currently and what may be needed in the future. b) Determine what obstacles and hurdles face the pork industry with respect to attracting and retaining employees. What are the job attributes that attract people to particular employment opportunities and how does the pork industry compare? c) Identify demographic, social and economic trends that are taking place in Ontario that may affect the labour pool for both swine farm and agri-business jobs. d) Provide recommendations and strategies that may assist the industry in meeting human resource needs. The report Human Resource Needs Assessment for the Pork Industry identified above will be referred to as the January 2008 report from this point forward. The purpose of this addendum is to discuss further where the majority of Ontario s pig production occurs and assess demographic variables such as age and education of the population in the major pig producing counties. Over and above the data already provided in the January 2008 report, additional Census 2006 and other recent data is provided. Specifically, this report includes 2006 Census data that was not released until May 1, 2008. When possible, labour and wage information is included in this addendum. This data provides insight into competition for labour that may exist. This knowledge can assist the pig production industry in creating unique recruitment and training programs that reflect each area s population base. It should be noted that data pertaining to individuals employed in agriculture and specifically on swine farms, is extremely limited and often unavailable due to confidentiality parameters. Every attempt has been made to report data at the most detailed level possible. 2.0 Farm Size and Geographic Location of Ontario s Pig Farms Table 1 provides data regarding the number and size of Ontario s pig farms over time. For example, the number of farms reporting pigs in Ontario decreased by 78% from 18,622 farms in 1976 to 4,070 farms in 2006. There is also an indication that there has been a gradual shift from small farms to larger farms. Table 1 shows the percentage distribution of Ontario pig farms by size category over time. In 2006, 32.9% of the farms reporting pigs were in the size class of 1 to 77 pigs. This means that nearly one-third of Ontario s pig farms had 77 pigs or fewer however, in 1976, 68.8% of Ontario s pig farms reported having this many pigs. On the other hand,

3.6% of Ontario s pig farms had 4,685 animals or more in 2006 compared to less than 1% of farms that had this many in 1976. The largest pig farms in the size class of 4,685 pigs and over, while representing only 3.6% of the farms with pigs, had 1,187,493 pigs (i.e. 30.1% of Ontario s total) on Census Day 2006. The smallest farms in the size class of 77 pigs or fewer, representing 68.8% of the farms, had 22,167 pigs (i.e. 0.6% of Ontario s total). Table 1 Ontario Farms Reporting Pigs and Distribution by Size Class Ontario 1976 1986 1996 2006 (i) Number of Farms Reporting Pigs 18,622 12,933 6,777 4,070 (ii) Distribution of farms by size class % 1 to 77 animals 68.8 47.7 40.2 32.9 78 to 272 animals 21.0 26.1 22.1 16.1 273 to 527 animals 6.8 12.8 15.3 12.3 528 to 1,127 animals 2.9 10.1 13.5 13.7 1,128 to 2,652 animals 0.5 2.8 7.0 15.3 2,653 to 4,684 animals 0.1 0.4 1.3 6.1 4,685 animals and over xx 0.1 0.6 3.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 2 shows that the top 10 pig producing counties held 85.9% of the total provincial pig inventory or nearly 3.4 million pigs, and 66.4% of all farms reporting pigs on Census Day 2006. The average number of pigs per farm in the top 10 counties was 1,256. This number was calculated based on the total number of pigs for each county divided by the total number of farms reporting pigs in each county. These statistics confirm that most of Ontario s pig production occurs in the south-west part of Ontario. It is recognized that some farms in these counties will have considerably more pigs than this number while some farms will have fewer pigs. Although one third of the total farms reporting pigs are found outside this group of 10 counties it is reasonable to conclude that many of them are smaller farms (i.e. average of 407 pigs per farm). Six additional counties are included in Table 2 two from central Ontario, two from eastern Ontario and two from northern Ontario. Together, these six counties held 2.8% of Ontario s pig inventory and the average farm size ranged from 183 to 741 pigs/farm. These counties were the top two in the central, eastern and northern regions of Ontario according to the total number of pigs at the county level.

Table 2 Number of Pigs per County/Municipality, 2006 1 Total pigs - County/Municipality Number of pigs % of Ontario Pigs Total pigs - Farms reporting Average Number of pigs/farm Huron 711,745 18.0 481 1,480 Perth 664,508 16.8 488 1,362 Oxford 470,360 11.9 269 1,749 Middlesex 370,624 9.4 227 1,633 Lambton 299,986 7.6 181 1,657 Wellington 298,627 7.6 313 954 Chatham-Kent 169,793 4.3 138 1,230 Waterloo 142,531 3.6 315 452 Bruce 140,046 3.5 179 782 Haldimand-Norfolk 125,633 3.2 112 1,122 Total 10 Counties 3,393,853 85.9 2,703 1,256 Rest of Ontario 556,739 14.1 1,367 407 Total Ontario 3,950,592 100.0 4,070 971 Durham 24,253 0.6 68 357 Peterborough 14,523 0.4 53 274 Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry 45,970 1.2 62 741 Prescott & Russell 16,327 0.4 34 480 Timiskaming 5,018 0.1 13 386 Rainy River 2,190 0.1 12 183!! In summary, Ontario s pig production has consolidated onto fewer, larger farms over time. The bulk of Ontario s pig production occurs in south-western Ontario, particularly in a 10 county area. These farms tend to be large in terms of pig numbers compared to the rest of Ontario. 3.0 Total Gross Farm Receipts from All Revenue Sources Table 3 shows a breakdown of total gross farm receipts for the top 10 pig producing counties in Ontario, the total for Ontario and data for six counties from central, eastern and northern Ontario. Statistics Canada does not publish gross farm receipts at the county level specifically for swine farms however Ontario farm cash receipts for hogs in 2007 amounted to approximately $819,958,000. The total gross farm receipts shown in Table 3 are for 2005 as reported in the 2006 Census. The first 10 counties represent $5.3 billion or 51.1% of Ontario s $10.3 billion in total farm receipts. It should be noted that total farm receipts for both Huron and Perth Counties in 2005 exceeded $700 million each.

The data in Table 3 shows that there is a significant number of larger farms in terms of total gross farm sales in the 10 county area. In fact, approximately half of all Ontario farms in the large farm sales categories are found in this region. For example, 54.7% of all Ontario farms reporting total farm receipts exceeding $500,000 are located in this 10 county area. Only 22.6% of the farms reporting less than $10,000 in total farm receipts are found in these counties. In contrast, the six counties in central, eastern and northern Ontario, shown in Table 3, reported $896.8 million in total sales or 8.7% of Ontario s total. Approximately 31% of the farms in these six counties had total farm sales of less than $10,000/farm. Table 3 Gross Farm Receipts, 2005 Number of Farms Reporting Total Gross Farm Receipts County/Municipality 1 # of Farms Total Gross Farm Receipts Under $10,000 $10,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $249,999 $250,000 to $499,999 $500,000 to $999,999 $1,000,000 to $1,999,999 $2,000,000 and over Huron 2,738 $ 718,605,605 255 389 417 426 564 362 208 66 51 Perth 2,438 $ 702,715,748 241 325 314 389 472 376 188 96 37 Oxford 1,990 $ 611,514,369 262 272 241 241 349 280 222 93 30 Middlesex 2,525 $ 594,259,965 407 460 370 328 403 277 182 72 26 Lambton 2,281 $ 376,427,396 331 433 402 387 384 177 92 57 18 Wellington 2,588 $ 491,073,653 484 431 316 288 456 379 165 51 18 Chatham-Kent 2,196 $ 433,318,307 234 362 375 401 439 199 121 47 18 Waterloo 1,444 $ 396,374,602 199 162 130 145 395 276 81 33 23 Bruce 2,259 $ 338,509,444 399 416 344 350 405 199 99 30 17 Haldimand-Norfolk 2,415 $ 619,360,433 459 387 294 230 389 382 170 67 37 Total 10 Counties 22,874 $ 5,282,159,522 3,271 3,637 3,203 3,185 4,256 2,907 1,528 612 275 Ontario 57,211 $ 10,342,031,229 14,500 10,828 7,397 6,521 7,965 5,589 2,745 1,098 568 10 County % of Ontario 40.0% 51.1% 22.6% 33.6% 43.3% 48.8% 53.4% 52.0% 55.7% 55.7% 48.4% Durham 1,686 $ 239,539,007 541 354 211 167 177 125 70 25 16 Peterborough 1,192 $ 77,655,643 470 309 148 95 83 59 21 5 2 Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry 1,811 $ 294,372,578 514 269 182 163 273 278 99 24 9 Prescott & Russell 1,052 $ 222,216,527 245 162 104 95 140 172 102 26 6 Timiskaming 471 $ 49,834,957 151 86 69 45 60 39 14 6 1 Rainy River 312 $ 13,152,226 95 80 58 46 25 8 0 0 0!! "

In summary, the 10 counties that have the majority of Ontario s pigs also represent more than half of total gross farm receipts for Ontario. Much of this can be attributed to farm size whereby 54.7% of all Ontario farms exceeding $500,000 in annual gross farm sales are located in this 10 county area. 4.0 Population and Age Demographics The total population in Ontario was 12,160,285 on May 16, 2006 (i.e. Census Day). Ontario s population increased 6.6% from 2001 to 2006 as shown in Table 4 below. Actually, all but three counties in Table 4 increased during this time frame and Durham increased by more than Ontario s rate of increase (i.e. 10.7% increase for Durham vs 6.6% increase for Ontario). Huron, Timiskaming and Rainy River populations decreased from 2001 to 2006 by -0.6%, -3.4% and -2.5% respectively. Table 4 also shows the considerable variation in the population base in these counties. For instance, Huron had a population of 59,325 people in 2006 while Durham reported 561,260; nearly 10 times more than Huron. Table 4 Ontario Population Characteristics, 2001 and 2006 County/Municipality 1 Total Population % Change 2001 to 2006 2001 2006 Huron 59,701 59,325-0.6 Perth 73,675 74,340 0.9 Oxford 99,270 102,755 3.5 Middlesex 403,185 422,330 4.7 Lambton 126,971 128,205 1.0 Wellington 187,313 200,425 7.0 Chatham-Kent 107,709 108,175 0.8 Waterloo 438,515 478,120 9.0 Bruce 63,892 65,350 2.3 Haldimand-Norfolk 104,670 107,810 3.0 Ontario 11,410,046 12,160,285 6.6 Durham 506,901 561,260 10.7 Peterborough 125,856 133,080 5.7 Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry 109,522 110,400 0.8 Prescott & Russell 76,446 80,180 4.9 Timiskaming 34,442 33,285-3.4 Rainy River 22,109 21,565-2.5!! #

Table 5 shows age-related data at the county level using 2006 Census data. The median age for Ontario was 39 years old. Several counties shown in Table 5 had populations in 2006 with median ages greater than Ontario s median age at 39. For example, the median age in 2006 in Bruce County was 45.1 years old, Timiskaming was 44.7, Peterborough was 43.6 and Lambton was 42.8. The age category 55 and older represented 30% or more of the populations in these counties in 2006. Four counties (i.e. Middlesex, Wellington, Waterloo, and Durham) however, had populations with median ages lower than Ontario. These counties tend to contain large urban centres that may appeal to younger individuals. Waterloo reported having the lowest median age at 36.4 and only 21.7% of its population was 55 years of age and older. Table 5 Age Characteristics of Ontario Population, 2001 and 2006 2001 2006 2006 Age Distribution of Population County/Municipality 1 Age 0-24 % of Age 25-54 % of Age 55 and Median Age years old population years old population older % of population Huron 39.8 42.3 18,810 31.7 22,180 37.4 18,340 30.9 Perth 37.2 39.3 24,795 33.4 30,165 40.6 19,380 26.1 Oxford 37.7 39.8 33,440 32.5 41,900 40.8 27,420 26.7 Middlesex 36.8 38.5 136,795 32.4 181,270 42.9 104,280 24.7 Lambton 40.0 42.8 39,095 30.5 50,455 39.4 38,655 30.2 Wellington 36.3 37.8 66,930 33.4 86,230 43.0 47,255 23.6 Chatham-Kent 38.5 41.2 34,390 31.8 43,370 40.1 30,395 28.1 Waterloo 35.3 36.4 161,940 33.9 212,510 44.4 103,680 21.7 Bruce 42.4 45.1 19,125 29.3 24,265 37.1 21,960 33.6 Haldimand-Norfolk 39.3 42.1 33,930 31.5 43,025 39.9 30,850 28.6 Ontario 37.2 39.0 3,841,175 31.6 5,313,425 43.7 3,005,695 24.7 Durham 35.9 37.7 193,785 34.5 250,090 44.6 117,395 20.9 Peterborough 41.1 43.6 39,350 29.6 51,010 38.3 42,725 32.1 Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry 40.0 42.7 33,115 30.0 44,440 40.3 32,845 29.8 Prescott & Russell 37.7 40.5 25,055 31.2 35,475 44.2 19,645 24.5 Timiskaming 41.1 44.7 9,330 28.0 13,105 39.4 10,855 32.6 Rainy River 38.2 41.0 7,025 32.6 8,545 39.6 5,995 27.8!! In summary, the median age of Ontario s population in 2006 was 39. While the median age fluctuated for the counties discussed from 36.4 in Waterloo to 45.1 in Bruce it appears that proximity to large urban centres affects population age at the county level.

5.0 Education Table 6 shows the highest level of education attained by the general population living in the ten counties that have the majority of Ontario s pig inventory. The results for Ontario s total population and six counties in central, eastern and northern Ontario are also included. The results shown in Table 6 use 2006 Census data and are similar to results shown in Table 4.6 of the January 2008 report (by Marchand, Boekhorst, and McEwan) that used 2001 Census data for the top five pig producing counties. The biggest change from 2001 to 2006 is the large percentage increase in the Ontario population that has completed University (i.e. 23.8% completed University in 2001 versus 30.7% in 2006). Completion of College at the provincial level also increased from 19.1% in 2001 to 22.0% in 2006. As might be expected, this trend is occurring at the county level also. When educational attainment in 2001 for the top 5 pig producing counties (i.e. Huron, Oxford, Perth, Middlesex and Lambton) in Table 4.6 of the January 2008 report is compared to the educational attainment in 2006 for the same 5 counties in Table 6 below, it is clear that people have completed higher levels of education in 2006 compared to 2001. For example, all five counties reported that higher proportions of their populations have completed College or University in 2006 versus 2001. In Table 6, the rate of University completion varies from 11.3% of the population in Timiskaming to 28.7% in Wellington. This means that all sixteen counties listed in Table 6 are lower than the 30.7% for the total provincial population and some are considerably lower (i.e. Timiskaming at 11.3%). However, with respect to College education all counties except Wellington reported higher levels of completion than for the Ontario population. The statistics in Table 6 do indicate that most counties shown have higher percentages of their populations that have not completed high school compared to the Ontario average. For example, results for Timiskaming, Huron, Chatham-Kent and Perth show that more than 20% of the populations in these four counties have not completed high school compared to only 13.6% of the total Ontario population that hasn t completed high school. $

Table 6 Highest Level of Education Completed, 2006 (% of County Population Attaining Each Level) County/Municipality 1 Less than high High school certificate Apprenticeship/trades College certificate school certificate or equivalent(2) certificate or diploma or diploma % of County Population University certificate; diploma or degree Huron 22.0 29.2 12.6 23.8 12.3 Perth 20.8 29.7 10.4 23.9 15.2 Oxford 19.5 31.0 11.0 24.5 14.0 Middlesex 12.7 25.8 8.7 25.5 27.2 Lambton 13.0 28.9 14.0 28.2 15.9 Wellington 14.8 26.5 9.2 20.8 28.7 Chatham-Kent 20.9 30.1 9.8 25.8 13.5 Waterloo 15.6 26.4 9.0 22.5 26.5 Bruce 17.8 26.5 13.5 25.8 16.4 Haldimand-Norfolk 19.9 27.9 13.5 25.8 12.9 Ontario 13.6 25.0 8.8 22.0 30.7 Durham 11.7 28.1 9.8 27.3 23.0 Peterborough 14.6 27.1 10.1 27.7 20.5 Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry 19.6 30.3 12.1 24.0 14.1 Prescott & Russell 16.9 30.8 11.9 23.6 16.7 Timiskaming 23.4 24.2 15.2 25.9 11.3 Rainy River 19.4 29.3 13.0 22.6 15.6 $&' (! ) ( # " * (!! + ),*-. ' ((/* 0$#12.3 4 56 ("%!! In summary, there is a large percentage of the population in most counties analysed who haven t completed high school compared to the Ontario population in general. University completion is lower for all counties reviewed compared to the Ontario population but from 2001 to 2006 there has been a shift towards higher levels of educational attainment for all counties. 6.0 Employment In Table 7, the unemployment rates on Census Day May 16, 2006 for 16 counties and Ontario are shown. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed residents expressed as a percentage of the total labour force in the week before Census Day (i.e. May 16, 2006). There is a wide variety of unemployment rates for the counties shown in Table 7. The rates range from 3.7% in Perth to 8.2% in Timiskaming. The low rates in counties such as Perth mean that few people were actively looking for work. A low unemployment rate in these counties makes it difficult to attract and keep labour in the agricultural industry. %

Table 7 Unemployment Rate (%) by County, 2006 County/Municipality 1 Unemployment rate (%) County/Municipality 1 Unemployment rate (%) Huron 4.4 Durham 6.3 Perth 3.7 Peterborough 7.1 Oxford 4.8 Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry 6.1 Middlesex 6.1 Prescott & Russell 4.2 Lambton 6.5 Timiskaming 8.2 Wellington 4.5 Rainy River 7.9 Chatham-Kent 7.2 Ontario 6.4 Waterloo 5.5 Bruce 5.3 Haldimand-Norfolk 6.0!! Table 8 shows the number of people in the experienced labour force at the county level and the total for Ontario using Census 2006 data. This is shown in the first row of Table 8. The remaining data is the distribution of the labour force by industry in each county. This is similar to 2001 Census data shown graphically for the top 5 pig producing counties in Figure 4.6 in the January 2008 report (by Marchand, Boekhorst and McEwan). Table 8 is split into two tables to accommodate all of the county information. The two tables are identical with respect to set-up but the results are shown for different counties. It is important to note that in Bruce and Huron the percentage of the population employed in the agriculture and other resource-based industries is 23% and 17% respectively - much higher than Ontario s rate at 3%. The agriculture and other resource-based industries category includes crop production, animal production, forestry and logging, fishing, hunting and trapping as well as support activities such as fertilizer application services and lime spreading. The statistics do not provide information specifically for those employed in the swine industry but they do indicate that agriculture (and other resourcebased industries) employs a small portion of the population in many counties. Some industries that comprise large shares of the labour force in the counties listed in Table 8 include manufacturing, retail trade, business services, other services and health and social services, particularly in counties with large medical communities such as London in Middlesex County. The other services industry includes the following: repair and maintenance of automotive, electronics, machinery and household goods; personal care services such as hair salons, funeral homes, dry cleaning and laundry; and religious and business organizations. All of the industries shown in Table 8 compete with the agriculture industry for labour. 0

Table 8 Labour Force Characteristics and Distribution by Industry at the County Level, 2006 County/Municipality 1 Huron Perth Oxford Middlesex Lambton Wellington Total Experienced Labour Force 2 (# of people) Agriculture & other resource-based industries Chatham -Kent Waterloo Bruce Haldimand -Norfolk Ontario 31,780 42,210 56,025 227,425 66,365 113,575 56,540 269,265 34,265 57,160 6,473,730 % of County Population Employed in Each Industry 17 10 8 3 7 5 9 2 23 12 3 Construction industries 8 6 6 6 8 6 5 6 7 7 6 Manufacturing industries 16 22 24 14 15 22 21 22 9 19 14 Wholesale trade 5 5 5 4 3 5 4 5 3 4 5 Retail trade 10 10 10 11 11 9 12 11 12 11 11 Finance & real estate 3 5 4 7 4 5 4 7 3 3 7 Health care & social services 10 9 9 13 11 9 9 8 9 11 9 Educational services 5 5 4 8 5 9 5 8 6 5 7 Business services 11 11 14 17 16 16 15 17 11 13 20 Other services 15 16 15 17 20 16 17 14 18 16 19 0#012.3 4 56 ($!!.* (!#!4( 4) () 4( (4 7 ) ) # 8) *)

Table 8 Labour Force Characteristics and Distribution by Industry at the County Level, 2006 (continued) County/Municipality 1 Stormont, Dundas & Prescott & Durham Peterborough Glengarry Russell Timiskaming Total Experienced Labour Force (# of people) 2 308,895 67,710 54,460 43,635 15,820 10,800 Agriculture and other resource-based industries % of County Population Employed in Each Industry Rainy River 4 4 6 5 13 9 Construction industries 7 7 7 10 7 7 Manufacturing industries 13 11 15 10 9 13 Wholesale trade 5 4 4 4 2 2 Retail trade 12 13 11 11 12 10 Finance and real estate 8 5 4 4 3 4 Health care and social services 9 12 11 11 13 14 Educational services 7 8 7 7 7 8 Business services 19 16 19 16 15 9 Other services 17 20 18 24 19 25 0#012.3 4 56 ($!!.* (!#!4( 4) () 4( (4 7 ) ) # 8 ) *) Table 9 shows the number of people working in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industry by age category. In the far right column of this table the median age of the employees in 11 of the 16 counties is higher than for the total Ontario agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting employee category. Ontario s median age in this table is 45.4 but for the 16 counties shown the median age ranges from 41.3 in Waterloo to 51.6 in Peterborough. The first 10 counties in Table 9 have 36.9% of Ontario s agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting workforce 15 years of age and older and the 16 counties together represent 46.3% of Ontario s agriculture and related primary industries workforce. It is probable that the majority of the individuals in the south-western Ontario counties (i.e. the first 10 counties) are employed in agriculture rather than forestry, fishing and hunting. However, attempting to assign a number for people specifically working on swine farms would only be speculating.

Table 9 Industry Employment by Age Groups, Employed in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting Industry at the County Level, 2006 County/Municipality 1 Population 15 years & over 2 15 to 24 25 to 54 55 & over Median age Huron 4,510 750 2,425 1,330 46.1 Perth 4,055 605 2,320 1,130 45.2 Oxford 3,900 805 2,115 980 42.9 Middlesex 4,670 825 2,260 1,585 46.4 Lambton 3,160 525 1,395 1,235 49.0 Wellington 4,405 920 2,275 1,205 43.1 Chatham-Kent 3,755 550 1,835 1,370 48.2 Waterloo 3,420 820 1,905 695 41.3 Bruce 3,070 525 1,485 1065 47.4 Haldimand-Norfolk 5,235 890 2,885 1455 46.0 Ontario 108,930 19,720 56,575 32,635 45.4 Durham 2,870 810 1,240 825 44.0 Peterborough 1,390 235 575 580 51.6 Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry 2,620 390 1,370 860 46.0 Prescott & Russell 1,755 310 940 505 45.7 Timiskaming 975 85 620 265 47.3 Rainy River 650 80 325 250 50.4 %9) ) * :)!! :+ ),*-;* ' ((/* 0$##012. 3456 ("%!! /(!) (47*,6-4( 4 7 ) ) 4 ( ) ) * & 4 * ) (< * *4 ( 4 ( (4 7 *! * ( 4 7 (, - Table 10 shows the total number of farm operators for all farm types at the county level using 2001 and 2006 Census data as well as the percentage change that has occurred during this time. It is unknown how many of these farm operators were on swine farms specifically. The data is broken out to show the number of farm operators on farms with one operator and farms with two or more operators. It is not surprising to see that the total number of Ontario farm operators fell 3.1% from 85,010 in 2001 to 82,405 in 2006 given the

consolidation that has been taking place in agriculture. In fact, only 2 of the 16 counties - Waterloo and Wellington - reported increases in the total number of farm operators during this time. The first 10 counties shown in Table 10 below represent 32,705 farm operators in 2006 or 39.7% of Ontario s total. Eastern and northern Ontario have experienced the largest decreases in total farm operator numbers during the time period shown. For example, total operator numbers declined in Timiskaming and Rainy River by 12.5% and 8.7% respectively. At the provincial level the number of multiple operators remained basically unchanged during the 5 years (i.e. 49,220 in 2001 versus 49,205 in 2006) while the number of single farm operators decreased by 7.2% (i.e. from 35,790 in 2001 to 33,200 in 2006). Table 10 Number of Operators Per Farm by County, 2001 and 2006 (# of farm operators) County/Municipality 1 1 Operator 2001 2006 % Change 06 vs 01 2 or More Operators Total Operators 1 Operator 2 or More Operators Total Operators 1 Operator 2 or More Operators Huron 1,815 2,135 3,950 1,665 2,140 3,805-8.3 0.2-3.7 Oxford 1,075 2,150 3,225 1,000 2,055 3,055-7.0-4.4-5.3 Perth 1,460 2,265 3,725 1,300 2,295 3,595-11.0 1.3-3.5 Chatham-Kent 1,600 1,510 3,110 1,410 1,555 2,965-11.9 3.0-4.7 Waterloo 970 990 1,960 885 1,160 2,045-8.8 17.2 4.3 Middlesex 1,560 2,215 3,775 1,415 2,245 3,660-9.3 1.4-3.0 Lambton 1,580 1,700 3,280 1,485 1,600 3,085-6.0-5.9-5.9 Wellington 1,535 2,195 3,730 1,430 2,350 3,780-6.8 7.1 1.3 Haldimand-Norfolk 1,405 2,480 3,885 1,250 2,350 3,600-11.0-5.2-7.3 Bruce 1,480 1,765 3,245 1,375 1,780 3,155-7.1 0.8-2.8 Ontario 35,790 49,220 85,010 33,200 49,205 82,405-7.2 0.0-3.1 Durham 995 1,500 2,495 975 1,500 2,475-2.0 0.0-0.8 Total Operators Peterborough 740 960 1,700 720 975 1,695-2.7 1.6-0.3 Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry 1,065 1,820 2,885 1,010 1,690 2,700-5.2-7.1-6.4 Prescott & Russell 570 1,200 1,770 525 1,110 1,635-7.9-7.5-7.6 Timiskaming 285 515 800 250 450 700-12.3-12.6-12.5 Rainy River 205 255 460 205 215 420 0.0-15.7-8.7 = * )!! In summary, some counties have very low unemployment rates and there is considerable competition for labour from other industries. Larger shares of the experienced workforce in rural counties are in agriculture and other resource-based industries compared to the Ontario population. As the total number of farms has decreased from 2001 to 2006 it has been at the expense of

declining single operator farm numbers. Multiple operator numbers at the provincial level have remained consistent during the 5 years. 7.0 Wages and Hours Worked Agriculture has long suffered from negative perceptions such as low pay and long hours of work. Data pertaining specifically to swine farms is difficult to find in Ontario due to confidentiality parameters and the relatively low number of individuals employed. With respect to specific occupations, general data regarding all farmers and farm managers, all farm supervisors and specialized livestock workers and all general farm workers is available at the provincial level. Although this type of information is for all farm types, the data can be used as a benchmark for the swine industry. A comparison of 2001 and 2006 Census data for average annual employment income in 2000 and 2005 (i.e. both in constant 2005 dollars) for employees aged 15 years and older for various occupations is displayed in Table 11. These occupations were used because it is believed that they might require similar skill sets. The average income reported is for individuals who worked mostly fulltime for 49 to 52 weeks during 2000 or 2005. In this table the average employment income for occupations in agriculture (i.e. the first 3 rows) ranged from $22,660 for farm supervisors and specialized livestock workers to $24,260 for farmers and farm managers. Carpenters reported average income of $36,764/year. The carpenters occupation class is the closest to the agricultural jobs listed but it is $12,504/year higher than the income reported for farmers and farm managers. In 2005, contractors and supervisors in carpentry trades reported an average income of $56,397/year and is $32,137 more than what farmers and farm managers reported. This is an example that validates the perception that agricultural jobs are typically low paying. It is recognized that this is the average income and some individuals will receive higher or lower pay than what is reported in the table below. It should be noted that for several occupations in Table 11 the average income decreased from 2000 to 2005 in constant 2005 dollars. Although this occurred for all agricultural occupations, it also happened for carpenters, bricklayers and truck drivers. Table 11 Ontario Full-year, Full-time Employees Aged 15 Years and Older, Male and Female 2000 vs 2005 (in constant 2005 dollars) Average Employment Average Employment % Change Occupation Classification Income - 2000 Income 2005 2005 vs 2000 I011 Farmers & farm managers $29,780 $24,260-18.5 I013 Farm supervisors & specialized livestock workers $31,514 $22,660-28.1 I021 General farm workers $25,956 $23,447-9.7 H015 Contractors & supervisors, carpentry trades $53,919 $56,397 4.6 H121 Carpenters $40,601 $36,764-9.5 H131 Bricklayers $44,456 $42,289-4.9 H711 Truck drivers $46,717 $43,420-7.1 H821 Construction trades helpers & labourers $38,865 $39,015 0.4 0$#1> "

Table 12 displays average hourly wage information for various occupations in five regions of Ontario. The reference period is 2006. These regions were selected because this is where the majority of Ontario s pigs are produced and highlights some of the competition agriculture faces with respect to labour in these areas. The occupations listed in Table 12 are for agriculture as well as jobs in other industries that might require similar skill sets. The data shows that the agricultural occupations in the first three rows are typically lower than the wages displayed for the other occupations. For example, farmers/farm managers in Waterloo Region, Huron, Perth, Wellington, Dufferin report average wages of $14.80/hour compared to truck drivers in the same area reporting $17.79/hour and motor vehicle assemblers/inspectors/testers reporting $28.88/hour. The one exception is farm supervisors/ specialized livestock workers in Cornwall/Hawkesbury who reported receiving an average of $16.00/hour. This is similar to wages reported by truck drivers and is higher than the construction and manufacturing labourers in that area. Higher wages for jobs in other industries that might require similar skill sets as shown in Table 12 make it more difficult to attract and keep employees in the agricultural industry. Table 12 Labour Market Information by Occupation by Area, Average Wage ($/hr), 2006 Reference Year London- Waterloo Region, Windsor/Essex, Cornwall/Hawkesbury Occupation Woodstock Huron, Perth, Chatham-Kent, Area Area Wellington, Dufferin Sarnia/Lambton Region Farmers/Farm Managers NA 14.80 11.80 11.10 NA Farm Supervisors/Specialized Livestock Workers Durham Region NA 13.86 12.30 16.00 NA General Farm Workers 11.10 11.81 10.40 12.00 11.65 Contractors/Supervisors Other Construction Trades Construction Trades Helper/Labourer NA 22.19 21.70 18.00 25.95 17.55 17.80 18.05 14.50 21.10 Truck Driver 17.73 17.79 17.75 16.30 17.95 Labourers Metal Fabrication 15.67 15.37 16.45 14.45 15.65 Motor Vehicle Assemblers, 24.67 28.88 29.25 15.05 30.70 Inspectors, Testers?!) ' ) 5 7! ) @;* 6 79 )!4 4 4 * ) 7 ) 6 ( %8 A!* A previous study regarding labour on Ontario swine farms was completed in November 2004 (Ken McEwan and Lynn Marchand, The Impact of Labour Variability on Ontario Swine Farms, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph). The authors surveyed Ontario swine farm employers with respect to what they paid their employees. It was reported that general labourers were paid an average of $10.93/hour, skilled labourers $15.00/hour and supervisors/managers $18.65/hour. In the January 2008 study (Marchand, Boekhorst and McEwan) a similar survey was undertaken. The results indicated that swine farm employers paid an average of $12.70/hour to general labourers, $16.01/hour to skilled labourers and $19.68/hour to supervisors/managers. The numbers show that wages paid to swine farm employees did increase from 2004 to 2008 although it is likely that the same farms did not participate in both surveys. It is #

reasonable to assume, however, that there was an upward trend in wages during that time. Wage results for the skilled labourers and supervisors/managers in the 2008 study are similar to some of the occupations shown in Table 12 but general labourer wage rates are much lower than the non-farm occupations. Data regarding hours of work is shown in Table 13 where the average actual hours worked per week are listed by industry for Ontario. It confirms the perception that employees in the agriculture industry tend to work longer hours each week than employees in other industries performing jobs that might require similar skills. For instance, the agriculture industry reported hours worked of 42.5 to 43.4 during the 3 years shown. The manufacturing and construction industries are closest to agriculture in terms of hours worked but they were still about 5 hours less per week in 2007. Table 13 Ontario, Average Actual Hours, Weekly, All Workers, Main Job, Both Sexes, North American Industry Classification System NAICS Industry 2005 2006 2007 All Industries 33.8 33.4 33.5 Agriculture 43.3 43.4 42.5 Utilities 37.2 35.6 36.3 Construction 37.7 36.6 37.2 Manufacturing 37.8 37.6 37.8 Transportation/Warehousing 36.8 37.2 36.5 8 96 B$"B$"%"B$#%B$#B$#B$#% Occupation categories are displayed in Table 14 with the average actual hours worked. Occupations unique to primary industry include farmers and farm managers, specialized livestock workers, general farm workers, harvesting labourers and similar positions in forestry, mining and fishing. Together, the occupations in primary industry worked an average of 40.2 hours in 2007. This is higher than the agriculture industry level of hours worked shown in Table 13. Some occupations in Table 14 such as transport and equipment operators, reported working 39 hours/week which is closer to the primary industry occupations but still lower.

Table 14 Ontario, Average Actual Hours, Weekly, All Workers, Main Job, Both Sexes, National Occupational Classification for Statistics Occupation 2005 2006 2007 Occupations unique to primary industry 40.6 41.0 40.2 Machine operators & assemblers in manufacturing including supervisors 37.5 36.6 37.6 Trades helpers, construction, & transportation labourers & related occupations 35.5 34.6 34.8 Transport & equipment operators 39.7 39.0 39.0 Construction trades 36.0 36.0 36.2 Trades, transport & equipment operators & related occupations 38.2 37.6 37.8 Labourers processing/manufacturing/utilities 34.9 34.9 34.0 8 96 B$%"%B$%"0B$%"#B$%"""B$%"B$%"0B$%"" Data reported in the November 2004 study identified prior to Table 13 (i.e. by McEwan and Marchand) also showed that Ontario swine farm employees tended to work long hours. A survey of Ontario swine farm employers conducted for the November 2004 study found that general labourers on swine farms were expected to work an average of 44.8 hours/week, skilled labourers an average of 47.0 hours/week and supervisors/managers an average of 48.2 hours/week. This is slightly more than survey findings in the January 2008 study that showed general labourers worked an average of 43.8 hours/week, skilled labourers 44.3 hours/week and supervisors/managers 47.5 hours/week and is considerably higher than the numbers reported in Tables 13 and 14. Swine farm employees were also surveyed for the January 2008 study and the results showed that they worked an average of 46.3 hours/week. In summary, negative perceptions about agriculture having low paying jobs and long hours of work were confirmed. Annual earnings in the agriculture industry were generally lower than industries that might require similar skills. With respect to specific occupations, some agriculture employees received considerably lower wages than jobs in other industries but swine industry survey results indicated that wages for skilled labourers and supervisors/managers were approaching wages received by occupations in other industries. The number of hours worked per week in the agriculture industry was about 5 hours more than for other industries. 8.0 Conclusions In conclusion, Ontario s pig farms have consolidated into fewer and larger farms over time. The majority of Ontario s pig production occurs in the south-western part of the province in 10 counties (i.e. 85.9% of Ontario s pig inventory is in this area). This group of counties has over half of Ontario s total gross farm receipts from all revenue sources and over half of all large farms in terms of total farm sales (i.e. more than $500,000 in annual farm sales per farm). The populations in these counties tend to be older and have completed less education compared to the total Ontario population. However, the highest level of educational completion has increased from 2001 to 2006 in all counties reviewed as well as for the Ontario population. $

Agriculture is not a large employer in Ontario (i.e. 3% of the experienced labour force is employed in agriculture and other resourcebased industries reported in 2006 Census). A low unemployment rate, especially in some counties, combined with low wages and long hours of work for agricultural jobs make it especially difficult to attract and keep labour in the agriculture industry. Agricultural wage information confirmed that these jobs typically earn lower wages than occupations in other industries that might require similar skills. Also, the number of hours worked in agricultural jobs is higher than these other occupations. Swine industry survey results however indicate that the gap between wages for some swine farm jobs and occupations in other industries may be narrowing but the number of hours worked is still high for swine farm jobs. A full listing of human resource recommendations and strategies for the swine industry is provided in the January 2008 report entitled Human Resource Needs Assessment for the Pork Industry. %