November 2003

Which comes first - the needs of government or farmers?

The CFA is proposed farm aid that responds to agricultural reality rather than bureaucratic imperatives. How will the Martin government react to this radical idea?

by BARRY WILSON

It was such a simple, logical idea, yet it contained such a rat's nest of policy complications.

In late September, Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen was on Parliament Hill with a policy proposal so radical it would change the ways government deals with farmers. On the surface, it sounded more like common sense than radicalism.

"Programs (should) be designed to accommodate the realities of Canadian farms," Friesen told the House of Commons finance committee in a presentation on what Paul Martin's first budget as prime minister should look like next year. "The approach so far has been to design programs based on government needs and to require producers to change how they farm in order to accommodate these. The focus should rather be on the needs of producers and their farming operations."

How radical would that be? Most government programs have fixed budgets. Support for farmers depends on what money has been squeezed out of cabinet and not what the need is.

Consider government response to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Here's a fixed amount of money, make it work. Consider distribution of the federal government's $600 million transition fund this year. Here's money, divided by need. If there isn't enough, payments will be pro-rated to make sure everyone gets a little.

Crop insurance is an exception. It pays out by need, with a government re-insurance program backing it up. But most government programs, agricultural or other, have a fixed budget. How else can deficit-conscious governments budget?

Still, Friesen had a point and he had his eyes firmly fixed on the government's latest farm policy scheme -- the agricultural policy framework with a fixed $5.2 billion, five-year federal spending commitment, an insistence that it cover natural disasters and that it end the seemingly-annual ritual of farmers asking for ad hoc help for this or that problem.

Clearly, it is a federal long-term commitment with a price. Here's a huge block of funding. Don't expect more. Friesen's point was that in an industry beset by weather uncertainty, foreign subsidy competition and a variety of unpredictable factors, of which BSE is only one, it is impossible to say in advance how much help will be needed. That is a bureaucratic budgeting concept and not farm reality.

Agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief thinks he has an answer. There is no yearly limit, he says, despite the talk of $1.1 billion. Unused funds can be brought forward from past years and funds can be borrowed from future years.

"Federally, we do not have a cap," he said in the House of Commons in a late-September debate on the cattle industry crisis. "If we need more than that, the money is there."

Surely, though, that is not true. Money is there until the five-year allotment is gone -- in one year, three years, whatever. Then it is back to Treasury Board for another unpopular request. The prospect of three bad years in a row, draining allocations and future possibilities, is not pessimism. The Prairies have suffered two drought years and now BSE in 2003.

So Friesen has a perfectly legitimate point. Farmers facing volatile prospects need certainty of support, not fixed bureaucratic budgets. Will Montrealer Paul Martin offer a blank cheque? Will the Montreal Canadiens win their first Stanley Cup in 11 years?

Don't bet the farm on either prospect. BF

Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..


back

November 2003

How to figure out your electricity costs -- and use it more efficiently

Your actual cost is much higher than the 4.3 cents a kiloWatthour shown on your bill. Knowing how much each piece of equipment uses can help you target the most savings

by RALPH G. WINFIELD

For many of us in rural Ontario, our total cost per kiloWatthour (kWh) used is just about 10 cents when we take the dollar amount of our bill and divide it by the actual usage. Keep in mind there are a lot of hidden charges such as the 9.2 per cent increase in kWh, called line losses, to give us the supplied value. Thus 9.2 per cent of the kWhs are not actually used by us, but we still have to pay for them.

So even if we are told, and shown on the monthly statement, that the cost for electricity is 4.3 cents/kWh, don't use that figure in determining the cost to operate any electrical device in the barn, shop or residence! The other major change since May 1, 2002, is that you can no longer average down your cost per kWh by using more per month.

Most of us began to realize the reality of the new billing system, even with the 4.3 cent cap, as we suffered through one of the coldest and darkest winters in recent memory. What actions can we take to reduce our hydro bill?

Basically, we have two options. One, stop using non-essential pieces of electrical equipment or reduce their operating time. Two, switch to more energy-efficient units, if the technology and equipment is available.

For many pieces of equipment, the actual energy use rate is relatively easy to calculate. For example, if 10 100-watt light bulbs are on for one hour, they will use one kWh of power and your cost will be 10 cents. If those same lights are on for four hours each day while you milk and feed the cows, they will consume 1 x 4 x 30 = 120 kWh by the end of a 30-day month. The operating cost will be about 120 x 0.10 = $12.

I, like many of you, have that old, faithful 20-cubic-foot chest freezer that was bought new in 1967 when we were paying less than two cents per kWh as the run-off rate. Being an energy researcher in a past life, I just happen to have a recording ammeter. So in March 2003, which was not the highest yearly demand period, I used the ammeter to record amperage draw and run time per day. A kWh meter would be more accurate, but I am comfortable stating that the average run time was 10.3 hr/day and the power draw was (P = VI) 120 x 4.2 ˜ 500 watts or 0.5 kW per hour. Thus, the cost to operate the old freezer in March was 0.5 kW x 10.3 hr/day x 31 days x $0.10/kWh = $15.965, or about $16.

My point here is that, with a little ingenuity, you can guesstimate the power consumption and operating cost of just about any piece of equipment on the farm. Your electrician can help you with amperage draw figures or possibly even a short-term kWh consumption test.

While lights, fans, and old freezers can be changed to save energy and money, deal with the big issues first. Look at heating units for water or air. Water heaters, space heaters and clothes dryers all use electricity at high rates and if the run time can be reduced, the effect will show up on your hydro bill.

Water heating

Ground water temperature can vary, but in most instances is considered to be constant at about 50°F (10°C). If it is heated to 140°F (60°C) the temperature rise will be 140 - 50 = 90 Fahrenheit degrees. (Forgive me for using the old Imperial system, but it is simpler for heating calculations.) By definition, one British Thermal Unit (Btu) will raise the temperature of one pound of water one Fahrenheit degree. Also, remember that one Imperial gallon (4.55L) of water weighs ten pounds.

To raise the temperature of all the water in a 60 Imperial gallon water heater by 90 Fahrenheit degrees, a total of 60 x 10 x 90 = 54,000 Btu will be required if we use an energy-efficient electrical immersion heating element and assume no standby (radiation) losses occur from the insulated tank. (More on standby losses later!)

Since one kWh will supply 3,413 Btu's of heat energy, 54,000 ÷ 3,413 = 15.8 kWh of electrical power will be required to heat each 60-gallon tank of water. Now, if we add the 9.2 per cent to that figure (15.8 x 1.092) we will be paying for 17.25 kWh. At 10 cents/kWh that amounts to $1.73. If the household use is 60 gallons per day for washing and bathing (which might be conservative for a family of four), add standby losses and the actual cost will be closer to $2 per day or about $60/month.

Space heating

For space heating, there are basically two major components of heat usage. One deals with the conducted heat or "shell" losses and the second is heating the infiltration or ventilation air.

The first item is easy to deal with. The higher you want to maintain the space temperature, the more insulation you add to walls and ceilings to reduce conducted heat loss. However, for many farm applications we might be just providing enough heat to prevent freezing in an older milk house or the farm shop.

Unnecessary air infiltration is often the more significant energy user. Again, there is a simple Imperial unit formula: Heat energy = cubic feet per minute (cfm) x 1.1 x Temperature difference.

Heat energy use rate will be in Btus per hour if we know the cfm of air exchange and the temperature difference between inside and outside in Fahrenheit degrees. The 1.1 is a constant.

An example: A small 1,500-watt electric heater is running continuously to maintain 40°F in an otherwise unused old milk house or shed attached to the back of the house. The outside temperature is +10°F, but the wind is blowing directly on the building, causing air to enter on one side and exit on the other. What we can calculate then is the cfm of air exchange as the conducted heat loss will be relatively small when the temperature difference is only 30 Fahrenheit degrees. The heat energy input will be 1,500 watts÷1,000 watts/kW x 3,413 Btu's per kWh = 5,120 Btus.

Air exchange = heat energy/(1.1 x ?t) = 5,120÷(1.1 x 30) = 155 cfm.

While that air exchange rate does not seem high, it can be virtually eliminated by caulking cracks or putting plastic sheets over old leaky windows. The 155 cfm rate is about what a bathroom fan exhausts while you are having a shower. Do you see now why you should run the bathroom fan with a timer or interlock it with the light switch? If left running unnecessarily, it will affect your heating bill just like leaky windows or doors, regardless of the type of heating system you have.

Just remember that, for every hour that 1,500-watt heater operates, your out-of-pocket cost is 1.5 x $.10 = $0.15. That can be $0.15 x 24 = $3.60/day or $3.60 x 30 = $108/month. The potential savings can soon pay for the caulking and plastic as well as your time.

In many animal or poultry buildings housing young animals or birds, it is essential that some heat be provided to maintain desired room temperature while permitting sufficient ventilation to remove moisture, dust and carbon dioxide. The major problem can be finding a heating unit that can run continuously when some heat is needed, while not forcing excess fan ventilation. This issue requires a full article.

The clothes dryer

This unit is a major energy user because it provides "the heat of vaporization" for water. The only way to reduce its energy use is to operate it less. In good weather conditions, Mother Nature supplies the energy if we supply the clothesline.

Finally, some key points to remember:

1. When buying new appliances like freezers and refrigerators look for the EnerGuide and ENERGY STAR labels. Buy ENERGY STAR units if possible, because these units can operate 365 days a year.

2. Buy energy efficient-motors for applications like ventilation fans that run many hours. Don't spend money replacing motors that only run a few hours per month, as is the case for silo unloaders and gutter cleaners.
3. Consider heat recovery equipment to preheat wash water if you produce milk.

4. Reduce hot water usage and water temperature when practical. Water-conserving showerheads do the job just as well! Do not lower water temperature for sanitizing milking equipment, but store the minimum amount required to reduce standby heat losses.

5. Reduce air infiltration/exchange whenever possible from a heated space. When ventilation for animals (including humans) and birds, is required do not over-ventilate when heat must be added.

6. Whenever possible, change the type of lighting to more energy-efficient units as long as the quality of light is consistent with the task. One primary example is security lighting, where light quality can be reduced to save significant energy. The yellowish high-pressure sodium lights will produce more than twice as much light per kWh as the traditional mercury vapour units.

7. Use timers on engine block heaters and oil heaters in transmissions and hydraulic tanks for winter starting. A four-hour preheat is as good as 24 hours of on-time and will save 83 per cent of the energy use.BF

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

November 2003

Open markets vs. protectionism - the battle begins at home

Supply management and Canadian Federation of Agriculture leaders face an uphill battle at the World Trade Organization and in Canada in convincing the skeptics that pursuing exports and protecting export-sensitive sectors is not incompatible.

by Barry Wilson

They have met, of course, probably even worked together on issues of general concern to Ontario farmers.

But the two -- one a grain grower and the other a chicken farmer representative -- are on opposite sides of an increasingly bitter divide as World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations over new agricultural trade and subsidy rules resume in Geneva this autumn after a disastrous and failed WTO meeting in Cancún, Mexico, in September.

The talks, likely to drag on for several years, will centre on a text that was produced as a chairman's compromise in Cancún after days of jockeying for position that showed little chance of agreement.

The text, offering ways to meet WTO goals of reducing trade and production-distorting subsidies, export subsidies and import barriers, is a controversial attempt to mesh interests of exporters, developing countries and the subsidizers who agree to reform but want to do it slowly.

Ken Bee, president of the lobby group Grain Growers of Canada, believes the deal would be in the interests of Canadian grains and oilseeds producers, opening markets and capping price-depressing subsidies with the goal of reducing them.

In Cancún, he was a member of Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance (CAFTA) contingent that pressed relentlessly for deep cuts in subsidies and protection, sought allies around the world and largely was on the winning side.

The text to be debated in Geneva reflects many of CAFTA's priorities. "I think we have a text that the government should work with to seek improvements, but it is a good start," said CAFTA president Ted Menzies, an Alberta grain farmer.

If the protectionists feel threatened, so be it. "Our ambition is to lower protection."

Ontario corn, soybean and wheat producers see the text as an opportunity for eventual trade into more markets at higher prices.

Mike Dungate, general manager of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, is on the other side of the debate. Dairy, poultry and egg sectors see little but trouble in the draft text to be debated in Geneva. As it stands, it would require supply management agencies to open more market access through expanded tariff rate quotas and to make the system less predictable by reducing over-quota tariffs by a to-be-negotiated amount.

As a final whammy, the proposal would require a decrease in overall average tariff levels, which Dungate said could be achieved only from even greater reductions in over-quota tariffs. "This comes as a shock," he said in Cancún, after seeing the proposed text little more than a day before the conference adjourned in stalemate over other issues. "This would severely affect us."

An angry Bob Friesen, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA), said the proposals, if approved after negotiations in Geneva, would "decimate" significant parts of Canada's supply-managed sectors, one of the few stable and profitable parts of Canadian agriculture.

Some Quebec dairy farmers demanded that, if it cannot be changed, the text should be torn up and Canada should leave the negotiations. But Agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief bluntly told farmers at the WTO talks that walking away from the WTO is not an option. "This isn't a time to tear up a text," the minister said. "We have to work with it and see what we can do."

Later, however, he conceded to reporters that there is little chance supply management can come out of these talks unscathed. Vanclief noted that farmers had watched during the week in Mexico as the working text became more hostile to protectionism, at the urging of other WTO members.

He said Canada would continue to promote its view that import-sensitive sectors can be protected while export sectors are given more liberalized market rules, as long as the import-sensitive sectors give some guaranteed access. But he also noted that the trend in the WTO is against that notion and Canada is just one country among 148. "Whether we like it or not, that is a reality Canada will be dealing with," he said. "Canada is not going to be able all by ourselves to write the text."

Supply management and CFA leaders at the WTO talks vowed to pull out all stops to defend their position and Canada's official "balanced" trade policy. It will mean fighting an uphill battle at the WTO and in Canada, trying to convince the skeptics that pursuing exports and protecting export-sensitive sectors is not incompatible.

Meanwhile, CAFTA is vowing to keep up the pressure on Ottawa to pursue a more trade liberalizing, protection-cutting strategy.

Ken Bee, meet Mike Dungate. The campaign begins at home. BF

Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..


back

November 2003

Multiple charges laid against Wood Lynn Farms give pork industry "a bit of a black eye"

Consumer confidence could be shaken, says Ontario Pork chairman Larry Skinner, after the OSPCA laid charges against seven men for "causing unnecessary pain, causing unnecessary suffering, wilful neglect and abandoning an animal in distress"

by DON STONEMAN & ROBERT IRWIN

Months of rumours came to an end last month when the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) announced it laid dozens of charges against seven men connected to bankrupt Wood Lynn Farms Ltd.

Even though Ontario Pork chairman Larry Skinner says this is an isolated incident, he concedes that Wood Lynn's relatively high profile and the number of farms involved "has given the industry a bit of a black eye." He predicts that consumer confidence in the Ontario pork industry could be shaken as it was after the highly publicized allegations of unsafe practices at Aylmer Meats. "Pork producers don't condone cruelty to animals," Skinner emphasizes.

In all, 77 criminal charges were laid against James R. Long and Ryan Long, both of London, Kevin McHardy of Lambeth, Martin Dewild of Wyoming, George Kahiri and Victor Aideyan of London, and John Bazilli of Waterford. The OSPCA said charges involved "thousands of animals dead and dying," and related to "causing unnecessary pain, causing unnecessary suffering, wilful neglect and abandoning an animal in distress."

Michael Draper, chief inspector at the OSPCA in Newmarket, described James Long as the president of Wood Lynn Farms and Ryan Long as "supervising all the farms."

Draper said McHardy and Dewild were "managing barns" while Kahiri and Aideyan "operated another barn on the Wood Lynn property under a different corporate number." John Bazilli of Waterford was a contractor who had Wood Lynn Farm hogs on his property, as well as his own, Draper says.

Draper says that when an OSPCA agent visited John Bazilli's farm following an allegation about an injured sow, "he (Bazilli) made an utterance to the inspector that he had tried killing (the sow) with a metal pipe. We brought a veterinarian in and euthanized it, along with another sow with similar injuries."

The specific charge is "unnecessary suffering," Draper says. "There are appropriate euthanasia methods... Smacking a full-grown sow over the head with a metal pipe isn't one of them."

Bazilli denies the allegations. "I run an independent operation," he says. "I have never had any involvement with them (Wood Lynn). I don't know anything about this."

Kahiri says Wood Lynn Farms was his landlord. "None of these things happened on our farm. Humane Society officials came a couple of times. I haven't received any judge's papers from them."

Better Farming was unable to contact the other persons charged before deadline. However, Kevin McHardy's father, Dave McHardy, says Kevin happened to be working at the barn in Dutton when the SPCA came in.

"He's feeling pretty bitter about this. He should never be in this position. There were four or five other people around him doing similar to him and they quit. He waited until the very end and got charged.

Wood Lynn Farms, which claims to be Canada's largest seedstock producer with its Baconmaker Genetics, is in bankruptcy. Its president, James Long, is a well-known pork commentator on the Farms.com website.

On Oct 13, the day before the OSPCA announcement, Long's space on Farms.com heralded the formation of Genesus, an alliance between Baconmaker Genetics and Keystone Pig Advancement company, and claimed the new company will be the largest genetic company affiliated with the Canadian Centre for Swine Improvement (CCSI), the official genetic research and development entity in Canada.

Genesus president Pat O'Meara, based in Oakville, Man., once marketed swine breeding stock for several large farms in Ontario. He says Long told him about the OSPCA investigation before Genesus was unveiled. O'Meara cautions that there are two sides to the story. BF

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..


back

November 2003

Make use of strategic planning to drive change

Strategic business planning can putt you in the driver's seat and give your farm its best chance of making the most of the changes the future will bring

by CARL FLETCHER

"When you are up to your ass in alligators, it is hard to remember that the original goal was to drain the swamp!"

This quote comes from a cartoon of a bewildered man waist deep among several very menacing alligators. Should the man find a way to extricate himself immediately and avoid being eaten by an alligator?

Yes! Just like the man facing the alligators, in times of crisis you use crisis management and do what needs to be done for immediate survival.

Does this mean that the original goal of draining the swamp is no longer valid? Was the planning time taken to identify draining the swamp as a priority and then develop the action plan to drain it a waste of time? No! In fact, once clear of the alligators, draining the swamp will most likely become a greater priority for our man in the swamp!

The cartoon drives home a number of points for farmers. First, every business day presents situations that require decisions. While most of these decisions affect routine day-to-day operations, there will also be crisis situations that must be confronted from time to time.

Second, surviving the day-to-day and annual management of a farm operation is an accomplishment that takes skill and tenacity.

Third, having a strategic plan and using strategic planning tools can help farmers successfully achieve both long-term and day-to-day goals when effective action is taken to implement the plan.

Strategic business planning is about putting you in the driver's seat in a way that gives your farm its best chance of making the most of the changes the future will bring. It is about anticipating, driving and capitalizing on change.

Anticipating change means seeing the future by identifying the changes coming that can affect your farm -- changes from both within and outside.

Driving change means shaping the future by taking actions so your farm can respond to the changes ahead. Capitalizing on change means making the best of what the future brings. While we try to "see" and "shape" the future as best we can, in the end we must be able to take advantage of whatever opportunity the future brings.

Doesn't it help to be lucky? Sure, but as the saying goes, "Luck is where preparedness meets opportunity".

I really like this quote. Many opportunities pass us by every day. How often have you heard someone say, "I guess I was just lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time?" While it is true that you may not have planned to be at that spot at that moment for that reason, you nonetheless recognized an opportunity as it came along, grabbed it and worked to develop it.

Most likely, many other people were exposed to the same opportunity, but were they prepared to recognize it and act on it? Planning is a part of being prepared -- and part of being lucky.

But planning alone will never accomplish anything. No one thing ever does. There is a balance between planning and goal setting, between taking action, evaluating what happened and adjusting or setting new goals.

These first three questions help create the plan. They are: "Where do you want to go?" "Where are you now?" And, if there is a gap between where your business is heading and where you want to be, "How do you get from where you are to where you want to go?"

"How are we doing in implementing the plan?" and "Is the plan working?" are questions that deal with evaluating the effectiveness of your strategic plan.

Strategic Planning is not something that you need do every day. Used periodically, it is a powerful tool that can help farmers sharpen their business intuition and help set aside some time for thinking about where the business is headed and how to get there.

When most farms are managed by the same people who supply the labour, it's easy to fall into the short-term trap of doing what has to be done immediately. There is no shortage of alligators! However, each of those short-term decisions is a step in some direction that, when added together, forms a current path for the farm. Without strategic planning, the current path takes on its own direction and may not end up where you want to go.

Over the next several articles, I will be sharing the strategic planning steps and tools available for farmers to use to drive their farm's success in the face of change. Better planning leads to better decisions and better farming. BF

Carl Fletcher is a Strategic Business Planning Program Lead with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Guelph.

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

November 2003

Understanding calcium's role in plant growth and yield

Calcium in the plant can help repel disease organisms. But lack of mobility in the plant means that it doesn't always reach the parts that need it, as in blossom end rot in tomatoes and peppers

by KEITH REID

Calcium, magnesium and sulphur -- the secondary nutrients -- are often ignored in fertilizer programs. When they do receive attention, it is too often as part of a sales pitch that has more to do with reaching sales targets than with meeting crop needs. This does not alter the fact that these elements are essential for plant growth and yield. Understanding more about these nutrients will help sort out the hype from the reality.

The term "secondary nutrients" stems from the materials that were commonly used as fertilizers when the industry developed. Calcium, magnesium and sulphur made up a large part of a 3-3-3 mixed fertilizer, but they were secondary to the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium that the fertilizer was sold to provide. Since then, the proportion of N-P-K in the blends has greatly increased, with an accompanying decrease in the content of secondary nutrients.

I will concentrate on calcium here and save discussion of magnesium and sulphur for future columns.

Calcium in the soil

Most Ontario soils have huge reserves of calcium in mineral form. Most common is calcium carbonate, or limestone, which can make up more than half of some soils. This limestone dissolves in moderately acid water and so provides a constant supply of calcium to plants. Calcium is also present as calcium sulphate, or gypsum, although the amount in most Ontario soils is quite small. Significant amounts of gypsum are much more common in the prairie soils of Western Canada.

The plant-available form of calcium is the calcium ion (Ca++). This can be found in the soil solution or in the cation exchange complex in the soil. In most soils, calcium is the most common cation, unless the soil is acid enough to have hydrogen replace most of the other cations. This means that soil pH is a good indicator of the calcium status of the soil, with acid soils at risk of low calcium content, while neutral or alkaline soils almost never are. Adding limestone to acid soils, either calcitic or dolomitic, will correct any calcium deficiency at the same time as it raises the pH.

Calcium is sometimes promoted as an answer to poor soil structure. Because calcium has two positive charges, it can act as a bridge between negatively charged clay particles, encouraging the soil to clump together rather than disperse in soil water. The opposite is true of sodium, so soils that have been affected by an excess of salt (like brine seeps from oil wells) can be improved by adding calcium.

In normal field soils, however, the impact of calcium content is hidden by many larger effects, such as organic matter content. I have not seen any clear evidence that adding calcium to Ontario soils, except as part of a liming material, has any impact on soil structure or crop yields. If there are field plots out there, I would welcome seeing the results.

Calcium in the plant

Within the plant, most of the calcium is tied up in the cell walls as calcium pectate. This adds strength and rigidity to the cell walls, helping to repel disease organisms.

Calcium also has a role in some enzyme reactions within the plant cells and in the formation of the cell nucleus, but the amounts needed for this are tiny. Calcium requirements are generally only one-fifth to one-tenth of the nitrogen uptake by plants, and removal from the field in the grain is only a small portion of that.

Calcium ions carried in the soil water entering the plant are more than adequate to meet crop needs in all but the most acid soils. In fact, plants sometimes exclude calcium from the water that is absorbed into the roots. Pine trees that grow in alkaline soils will sometimes have crusts of limestone surrounding the roots. These form when carbonate ions released from the roots react with the high concentration of calcium ions in the soil around the roots and precipitate out as calcium carbonate.

One of the unique aspects of calcium in plants is that is almost completely immobile. Other nutrients can move through the phloem from one part of the plant to another, but any calcium movement in the phloem precipitates a reaction that completely blocks the phloem tubes. Calcium can move passively through the xylem from the roots to the top of the plant, but once it has been deposited in the tissue it is there to stay.

Calcium-related disorders. The lack of calcium mobility within the plant means that there are many disorders that are related to deficiency of calcium in some part of the plant, even though there is lots of calcium in the soil and in other parts of the plant. One common example of this is blossom end rot in tomatoes or peppers.

Blossom end rot has its beginnings soon after the fruit begins to form. If the plant is under moisture stress during this period, the amount of water reaching the developing fruit is reduced, because most of the water is being pulled out through the leaves.

The reduction in water also means a reduction in calcium reaching the fruit, and the small cells in the embryonic fruit develop with less than normal amounts of calcium pectate in the cell walls.

A change to wetter weather, or irrigation, causes a rapid expansion of the fruits and the weakened cells break down. Since the lowest amount of calcium reaches the very tip of the fruit (the blossom end), this is where the breakdown in concentrated. Similar expressions of calcium deficiency can occur in other plants, such as bitter pit in apples, blackheart in celery or potatoes and tipburn in lettuce.

Because of the immobility of calcium in the plant, foliar sprays are ineffective unless the spray is concentrated on the part of the plant that is actually deficient and at the time the deficiency is developing. It is difficult to get adequate spray coverage to provide sufficient calcium for marble-sized fruits that are hidden under layers of foliage.

There appears to be some promise to applying calcium in the soil surrounding developing potato tubers, but this work needs to be confirmed in field trials.BF

Keith Reid is soil fertility specialist with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, based in Stratford. Email keith.reid@omafra.gov.on.ca

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

November 2003

Manitoba's soybean acreage rapidly expanding

With new edible and feed varieties working well, Manitoba producers hope to become players in Asia's high-value, edible soybean market

by JOHN DIETZ

Canada's soybean industry is strong enough to welcome a serious entry by growers from another province, says Kim Cooper, market coordinator for the Ontario Soybean Growers and secretary-treasurer for the Canadian Soybean Export Association.

"From an overall industry standpoint, it's probably good news," says Cooper, referring to the rapid growth in soybean plantings by Manitoba growers.

Total Canadian planting, according to Statistics Canada, is about 2.58 million acres, of which Ontario has 2 million acres in 2003 and Quebec has 360,000. Manitoba planted 220,000 acres in 2003. In theory, Manitoba could reach 500,000 acres for 2004 with this rate of expansion. And, as of mid-July, the Manitoba crop appears to be in excellent condition.

About 30 per cent of Canadian soybeans have been exported, says Cooper. The rest are crushed for livestock feed. Most crushed production goes into the eastern livestock industry.

"Our crushers aren't able to meet the increased demand for soybean meal, so we import a lot of soybean meal from the U.S.," Cooper says. These crushers also import a 'fair amount' of soybeans to replace soybeans being exported to countries around the world.

Similarly, in western Canada, feed companies import soybean meal from the United States. Most Manitoba production in 2001 was crushed in Minnesota and North Dakota.

Some 2002 production from Manitoba was exported to the Asian market as food grade, identity-preserved beans. For the first time, a Manitoba company joined the Canadian trade tour to Japan in 2002.

That was good news, says Cooper. "The last two years in Ontario have been our worst in terms of weather. Drought and aphids really cut back our production, and a lot of our overseas customers had become quite concerned because Canada's never had a problem before with production. So, if we can expand our base of production (to Manitoba) to spread the risk, it's probably a little better for everyone."

He admits, some eastern exporters "probably are a little nervous" about expanding the base of food grade production. Others, however, "see it as an opportunity" to partner with companies in western Canada.

Manitoba will have a shipping advantage on export soybeans going west. That advantage, however, is narrow compared to the cost of ocean travel. In Cooper's view, it isn't a major issue.

The soybean opportunity is good news from a Manitoba viewpoint, definitely, says Don Sissons, chairman of the Manitoba Pulse Growers Association. The Sissons family at Portage la Prairie, Man., began growing soybeans in 2000. They solid-seeded about 300 acres in 2003.

"Manitoba producers have a reputation of going for it when their economic survival is on the line. As we continue to be threatened on a lot of fronts, it's not foreign to us to be aggressive with new crop types," says Sissons. "We're aggressively pursuing whatever it takes to make us a player in that Asian, high-value, edible soybean market."

The big change is in varieties. Six years ago, no soybeans varieties worked for Manitoba growers. Now, new edible and feed varieties are working quite well - well enough, in fact, that at least one company opened Manitoba's first soybean crushing plant in July 2003. Its production capacity, about 100 tons a day, is slated for local consumption.

Large new crushing plants also have opened or are planned in North Dakota and Minnesota. Soybean production in those states also is increasing rapidly.

The timing for this growth in soybean acres is excellent. Sissons notes that Manitoba is enjoying a boom in intensive livestock facilities. "This creates more options and alternate feed sources to service that growing sector, rather than always importing feed from the US market."

There's also interest functional foods in Manitoba. Research is underway to determine if Manitoba-grown soybeans could have a nutritional 'edge.'

"We're basically at Ground Zero," Sissons says. "We've had a tremendous growth in acreage, but it's not just growers putting in sheer acres. A lot of things are starting to come together, on a lot of fronts, to make up an industry." BF

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

November 2003

Europe's milk producers quick to sign up for quality assurance programs

In the wake of numerous media-hyped food scandals, dairies are demanding tighter guarantees and inspections, and dairy farmers are not balking

by NORMAN DUNN

Just like everywhere else, milk producers in Europe have to comply with strict hygiene rules before their produce is accepted by processors. But a new trend has been growing steadily over recent years. Dairies want more than just a low cell count. They want guarantees on cattle feed quality, full records of all herd veterinary treatment and regular independent inspections of buildings and milking premises for welfare and hygiene conditions.

Some go much further. Dutch quality regulations now insist, for instance, that every bulk tank be fitted with a "tank watcher" - an alarm system that warns the farmer by mobile phone or pager if cooling or agitation stops.

Quality assurance programs for milk production are being introduced in country after country as processors strive for more control over how the commodity is produced back on the farm. After BSE and a host of other media-hyped food scandals, the image of each dairy's products has become even more important for marketing. Most of the schemes cost farmers money -- the Dutch KKM program costs each producer around $200 Cdn per year. But those who resist processor demands for certification, or fail the inspections, can find themselves unable to sell their milk for human consumption.

British producers have prospered under the National Dairy Farm Assured Scheme (NDFAS), since 1997 and 80 per cent of herds now take part. Here, there's no extra cost to the farmer, but those failing to comply with a long list of rules, including approved training of staff in stockmanship and hygiene, can end up losing their supply contract. Independent farm inspections for the British scheme are carried out on each farm every 15 to 18 months.

In France, so far, there are no sanctions or bonuses under the country's "Charta" scheme with its 29 quality criteria. But this hasn't stopped one third of the country's 120,000 dairy farmers signing-up for the free system. In neighbouring Belgium, the national IKM milk quality scheme charges farmers around $100 Cdn apiece. But there's a bonus system that the processors claim easily covers the costs for the average dairy herd (32 milkers). Incidentally, the Belgian system, which was started 39 years ago, is one of the oldest of its kind in Europe. It is also one of the most demanding with farm facilities and cattle tested every two years on 100 quality points in five main categories: cleaning procedure, milk hygiene, animal health, animal welfare and environmental impact.

In Germany, some processors have long had their own milk quality schemes with top performing farms earning premiums of a few cents per litre. As of this autumn, however, a compulsory QM (quality management in milk) program is to be introduced for all 130,000 dairy farms, with federal agencies responsible for administration and testing of farms to be on a three-year cycle.

Causing much unrest in dairy circles at the moment is the pricing system involved. Some federal agencies, supported by the milk industry, will make no charge for initial assessment of dairy farms and subsequent tests. Others, such as that in the eastern region of Saxony, aim to charge farmers as much as $225 Cdn per visit!

Despite this, enthusiasm for a countrywide quality scheme to boost consumer confidence is extremely high. For instance, every producer in the country received a form for details of their business in preparation for the initial QM assessment. Now, we all know what happens to such forms on many farms, and the German attitude to such additional paperwork is no different. But regional governments have reported a remarkable 95 per cent return rate for the completed forms.

Arla Foods, the processor that shifts the most milk on the continent with over seven billion, litres processed annually, is going to try a different quality assurance approach with the 15,500 farmers supplying its milk and cheese plants in Denmark and Sweden. This co-operative doesn't see why the farmers must pay for a control scheme that should ensure better markets right down the line. The wide-ranging Arla scheme, to be launched this autumn under the name ArlaGaard or ArlaFarm, is to be financed by the processor. At headquarters in Denmark, the planners reckon that to get the two-country assured quality system up and running with annual tests for every farm will cost $ 4.5 million Cdn for the first three years.

And, when Europe's largest processor is willing to spend this amount, it's pretty clear that milk quality assurance schemes are seen as critical for maintaining incomes in this sector from now on.BF

Norman Dunn writes about European agriculture from Germany.

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

top