January 2004

BEHINDTHELINES

Here are two big numbers for you -- 1.2 million and half a billion.

The first is the number of acres of "improved" and "unimproved" pasture that Ontario livestock graze on every year. The second is the number of dollars that the livestock industry estimates it would cost to fence livestock away from all of the riparian (stream bank) areas on that pastured land.

Under interpretations of the federal Fisheries Act that date back nearly 25 years, there is no tolerance for even the smallest amount of manure to enter streams where fish live, regardless of whether there is an effect. The only solution to livestock in streams is total exclusion, according to the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada, The cost of removing livestock access to streams is huge, especially for a low-cost, relatively low-return industry.

In spite of all the modern technology that has been applied to agriculture, extensive grazing of livestock, one of the original forms of agriculture that dates back to Old Testament times, is still a major business in this province. Those big numbers help put it into perspective and also help explain why beef producers are so concerned about the cost of excluding livestock from stream banks.

Mike McMorris, executive vice-president at the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, assures us that the $500 million number was not "pulled out of thin air." He says it is the result of using a formula that was developed in conjunction with the staff from the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association several years ago. It's a number that the cattlemen's association sticks with. For their part, Environment Canada officials are adamant that the law is the law and that their officers will continue to enforce it.

As we were completing extensive interviews with Environment Canada, officials admitted that they are watching a court case in Kingston for possible new high court interpretations of the Fisheries Act. The Ontario Court of Appeal is considering the case of Belle Park, Kingston's former landfill. In 2002 the Superior Court overturned previous convictions, and an imposed fine of $150,000 against the city of Kingston under the federal Fisheries Act, for allowing leachate to leak from the former dump into the Cataraqui River.

"We are watching that one closely," an Environment Canada official said. BF

ROBERT IRWIN & DON STONEMAN

In Quotes "It's a niche market that's drying up." --Ottawa lawyer William Hunter, about the burgeoning business that some lawyers have enjoyed fighting pig barn construction across the province of Ontario.

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back

Cover - January 2004

David Moritz's costly battle with Environment Canada

Though local conservation experts put him in a low-risk category, this Orangeville-area farmer was forced to fence off his grazing land from a nearby stream, losing him not only money but one third of his available acreage. Now the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, worried that as many as half of the province's 20,000 cow-calf operators could be similarly affected, is fighting back

by DON STONEMAN

The complaints against David Moritz started in the summer of 2002, shortly after the Orangeville-area beef and sheep producer prevailed in a dispute with a new neighbour over maintenance of a line fence.

First, the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) came to visit Moritz's farm to investigate a complaint that Moritz had strung fence wire across Willow Creek, which bisects Moritz's farm. "I made a determination that it was a non-navigable waterway," says Sarnia-based investigator Mark Wright. File closed.

While that handful of muck thrown at Moritz missed, the next one stuck. The farmer vividly describes how, on Oct. 24, an Environment Canada inspector driving "a big white four-wheel drive" rolled into his laneway, following up on another "confidential" complaint from a disgruntled neighbour.

In the wake of this visit, Environment Canada investigator David Large wrote to Moritz in a letter dated Nov. 6: "My inspection...determined that Mr. David Moritz has permitted cattle to access Willow Brook, thereby resulting in (a) the harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat, contrary to subsection 35 (1) of the Act, and (b) the deposit of deleterious substances (livestock urine and feces) under conditions where the deleterious substances...may enter water frequented by fish, contrary to subsection 36 (3) of the Act" and thereby resulting in offences under subsections 40(1) and (2) of the said Act."

For a farmer whose "crime" is pasturing 50 stocker cattle on a little more than 50 acres, the penalties can be substantial. Large's letter to Mortiz goes on to say that violating subsection 35 (1) of the Act or subsection 36 (3) in the first offense under a summary conviction can result in a fine not exceeding $300,000. For subsequent offenses, a jail term of as much as six months can be added to the fine. If the contravention of subsection 36 (1) or 36 (3) is dealt with as an indictable offense, a fine of as much as $1 million can be levied, along with a jail term of up to three years.

A strenuous defense mounted by the Ontario Cattlemen's Association (OCA) came up short. More than a year later, after a series of meetings, a flurry of letters, two independent evaluations of the farm to measure environmental damage, another visit from Environment Canada and two federal directives, Moritz is building a fence to keep livestock out of Willow Brook. A grant from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) will pay for most of the cost of materials, and a way to water the cattle next year has been established, but David Moritz still hasn't figured out how to give his cattle access to 15 acres on the other side of the stream. His acreage available to graze 50 stockers has been cut by a third.

Moritz's farm was one battleground, but the frustrated OCA has not yet conceded the bigger war to Environment Canada. The issue of fencing cattle out of waterways is a troubling one for the livestock industry in general and the Ontario beef industry in particular. Former Ontario Minister of Agriculture Helen Johns invoked the wrath of small livestock producers across the province a year ago when it appeared that proposed regulations under the Nutrient Management Act would make fencing of livestock from waterways mandatory. Johns and the ministry backed down -- for the time being, at least. Grazing cattle access issues have been referred to the provincial nutrient management advisory committee and recommendations are scheduled to go to the government by mid-2005. Any change in government regulations would come after that.

Ignorant of BMP approach

Dealing with Environment Canada is another matter. The Fisheries Act is under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and, through a memorandum of understanding, Environment Canada enforces subsection 35 (1) and subsection 36 (3) across Canada. Inspectors take their work seriously. While they do target some key watersheds, mostly they respond to complaints.

Their credo is total exclusion of cattle from streams, and this infuriates Mike McMorris, executive vice-president of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association. In a letter to regional director general John Mills of Environment Canada last April, McMorris pointed out some of the problems he sees with the ministry's approach.

"The ability of persons to lodge anonymous complaints that are then dealt with through a regulatory approach puts landowners in the unfortunate situation of being exposed to frivolous complaints by disgruntled neighbours. Following the inspection process, landowners are left in a state of confusion with no clear next steps provided to them." Last, but not least, inspection staff "seems to be unaware of, and/or not understanding of the Best Management Practices approach."

The "Best Management Practices" (BMP) manual file has been on McMorris's desk since he came to the OCA from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food four years ago.

The manual is finished, after years of work, and at press time was being mailed to livestock producers. The philosophy of the BMP is "fencing where necessary, but not necessarily fencing," says McMorris, who chaired the committee that developed the manual.

Fencing all livestock out of streams is unrealistic economically and often unnecessary from an environmental standpoint, says McMorris, citing a "best estimate" of half a billion dollars for the initial cost (let alone maintenance) of fencing all livestock from waterways in Ontario. McMorris says likely half of the province's 20,000 cow-calf operators may be affected by this, as well as most of the stocker operators, many sheep producers and some dairy farmers who still graze extensively.

While years of work have resulted in a manual, one of the key objectives of the exercise has not been attained. McMorris says the BMP manual has been unsuccessful in changing the culture at Environment Canada.

David Moritz is a case in point. So is Ken Tuininga, the Environment Canada official who has been sitting on the Best Management Practices working group. Tuininga says risk factors don't have much to do with how Environment Canada enforces The Fisheries Act. The current enforcement of Section 36(3) is based upon "a key piece of case law" dating back to a 1979 decision against the B.C. forest products giant, MacMillan Bloedel. That case, Tuininga says, determined that any amount of a substance that has been determined deleterious is put into fish habitat is important, regardless of whether it has an effect or not. "Essentially, livestock cannot be allowed to deposit manure or other deleterious substances" in a waterway, he says.

Borderline case

That makes working on David Moritz's farm an exercise in frustration. On the Moritz farm, there is a 50-acre stream valley and flood plain where cattle have grazed for more than half a century. Moritz grazes 50 heifers weighing between 600 and 800 pounds on the site. There are 35 acres on one side of Willow Brook and 15 acres on the other side. The stream runs for 2,300 feet through the farm.

Last summer, Ontario Livestock Commodities water quality specialist Chris Attema assessed Moritz's farm using the BMP criteria (see story on page XX) and scored it in the "low risk" category. A similar appraisal conducted by the GRCA scored the farm slightly higher -- just into a higher risk category.

Attema says the differences are so slight that the results are consistent. Some areas are on the borderline of requiring management changes, says Tracey Ryan, supervisor of conservation services for the GRCA. Choosing her words with caution, Ryan says she has seen "worse farms than this" where Environment Canada hasn't come down on the owner.

The GRCA "electro-fished" Willow Brook at the bottom end of Moritz's property. Electro fishing involves passing a current through the water to stun fish so that researchers can count the numbers and species present. There were 13 species of fish found in a 20-metre section of water. Among them were smallmouth bass, which the GRCA's Ryan describes as "a top predator." Ryan cautions, however, that there is no information on species in Willow Brook upstream and downstream from Moritz's pasture. Nor are there plans to go fishing for them. Electro-fishing is costly in terms of staff time, Ryan says, and it requires a number of permits from provincial as well as local authorities.

Attema found lots of invertebrate organisms, such as caddisflies and mayflies, in the water. He says studies at the University of Guelph by Ann Clark in the late 1990s showed that the presence of these organisms, some of which have a life cycle of as long as two years, were an indication of the long-term health of a stream.

Last summer, Attema looked at Moritz's farm and concluded in a written report that changes that would exclude livestock from the stream, as demanded by Environment Canada, were either going to be very costly for the farmer or bad for the river.

Fencing both sides with a mid-level crossing and an alternate water source would cost more than $17,000. The farmer would be able to use both sides of the river, minus several acres tied up in buffer strips, but the cost would be onerous.

Fencing one side would cost $6,700. A 20-foot buffer strip would remove two acres from grazing. Worse, in Moritz's case, 15 acres on the other side of the brook would be taken out of production. However, this was the solution that Moritz eventually took.

Providing alternate watering without fencing would have cost only $2,100, but doesn't meet the 100 per cent exclusion goal, and "enforcement would be subject to the enforcement office discretion," Attema says.

He points out that, ironically, one of the options that would meet the Environment Canada criteria of excluding cattle from stream is to convert the flood plain to a cash crop field. This would increase the sediment load in Willow Brook, but it would achieve the desired goal of keeping cattle manure out of the stream.

"My argument at Moritz's," says Attema, noting that he will be criticized for this view, is that through the GRCA grant the province is putting money into something that isn't going to improve the stream. "That's just wasting taxpayers dollars in low-density situations such as Moritz's."

The OCA's remedies

In the summer, the OCA wrote to Environment Canada with a series of recommendations to deal with the issue of low-density grazing. It proposed that:

• Clear recognition be given that less than 100 per cent stream exclusion approaches are an acceptable option in cases where animal density is low and the cost of a remedy is high, and that providing another watering sources be recognized as a management alternative.

• Farmers be compensated for lost income and lost use of productive land.

• A formal complaint response protocol be developed, based on a memorandum of understanding with the provincial ministry of agriculture and food and commodity organizations to ensure that regulations are applied consistently and with regard to provincial regulations and industry's best management practices.

• Financial support be provided for promotion of technology development in co-operation with commodities affected by the low-density grazing policies.

• Personnel at Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans be designated to assist in altering the legal text of the Fisheries Act to permit low-density grazing practices consistent with industry best management practices.

A letter outlining these recommendations was sent to Environment Canada in July with a request to reply within four weeks. To date, no reply has been received, says Attema.

How tough is it to write a new regulation? Tuininga says that, because of the diverse nature of the livestock industry, that will be very difficult. "It took three years to develop regulations for the pulp and paper industry, and that is quite a homogeneous industry," he says. Environment Canada has been working on wastewater across Canada for seven years "and hasn't been able to come up with answers."

Inspector David Large spelled this out in an exchange with the OCA's McMorris in the summer and fall. Large writes: "You have asked about 'industry standards' and whether or not they will be recognized. From an enforcement perspective, we do not comment on, nor do we approve, specific recommendations with respect to remedial measures.

Tuininga says the position of enforcement staff at Environment Canada is not unreasonable. "When you come from a non-regulatory background, it's difficult to appreciate the unique position that our enforcement folks are in," Tuininga says. "Our enforcement guys are very reasonable, as reasonable as they can be."

He says that, since Environment Canada began enforcing the Fisheries Act provisions in 1996 or 1997, only one charge has been laid regarding cattle access to a stream "and in that case the person was not a farmer, really a hobby farmer." Moritz wasn't charged, he was "warned" once and "directed" twice.

Does the BMP manual help?

So if the Best Management Practices manual doesn't meet Environment Canada standards, Moritz wonders, where does it fit in? "(Environment Canada's) view of life is that 'one hoof in the water is too many,'" he says.

The OCA's McMorris acknowledges that there is a divergence of opinion about the value of the manual. "One train of thought is, 'If Environment Canada isn't going to accept best management practices, then why bother putting out a book that suggests them.'"

The other view, McMorris, says, is that farmers who follow the manual are proving that they are making an attempt to improve the environment and are performing "due diligence" on their farm, so helping to build the case that farmers are thinking in an environmental manner.

In any case, McMorris says following the manual is an alternative to just saying, "I'm not going to do anything, fine me." Without this manual, he says, the alternative is "we won't do education and we won't encourage anyone to do any changes and the solution is (for Environment Canada) to send in the inspectors."

In an effort to clarify this dilemma, Better Farming asked Environment Canada's Tuininga if applying the best management practices manual to a farm constitutes "due diligence." Not necessarily, replies Tuininga. "Some of the recommended steps that are provided in that risk assessment or in the manual don't -- they don't provide due diligence in all situations."

As for Moritz, he still isn't off the hook with Environment Canada, according to another letter from Large. "This warning and the circumstances to which it refers will form part of Environment Canada's record of David Moritz, and will be taken into account in future responses to alleged violations and for internal purposes such as setting the frequency of inspections."

So, despite David Moritz's best efforts to find a way out of this impasse, he can be sure of one thing. Environment Canada inspectors will likely be coming his way again. BF

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

Assessing the risk to surface and ground water

The OCA's Mike McMorris says "a key feature" of the Best Management Practices for Buffer Strips on Farms is the use of an individual site assessment that will determine which management practices are most appropriate for a farm and the most practical and affordable methods to put them into action. There is a scoring system associated with the plan.

Intensive operations, such as those with more than one animal unit per acre, and where animals have access all year round, should be immediately denied access to watercourses. For extensive operations with low animal concentration, a risk assessment takes into account a dozen different risk factors that may contribute to, or mitigate, the risk of pollution to both surface and ground water. These factors include soil type, slope, depth of soil to water table, flood risk, location near to wells, types of vegetation and drainage into surface water.

The assessment also looks at management factors in a pasture situation that may be high or low risk, such as location of feed and salt relative to a water course, watering sources for livestock, grazing duration and intensity near the riparian areas, manure concentrations, wintering practices, and bank and streambed conditions. Then, the risk assessment considers the condition of water in the stream, vegetation on the stream bank, the presence of fish and wildlife and their habitat.

Finally, there are resource considerations. Are crops irrigated from the stream downstream from the grazing area? Is there a fishery designated nearby? If a stream has been designated a cold water fishery (usually a trout stream), then the stream is considered a high-risk area. If there is urban water usage closer than 10 kilometres, pasturing becomes a high risk factor on a farm. BF

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

January 2004

L E T T E R S

Wendell Palmer vs. the Humane Society - the readers respond

Your coverage of recent dealings with the Ontario SPCA ("The Case of the Limping Pig," Better Farming, November 2003) shows just how important it is for farmers to know their rights and responsibilities before the humane society comes knocking on the barn door. Because the OSPCA acts primarily on complaint, any animal owner could be subject to a visit from a humane society official.

The Ontario Farm Animal Council (OFAC) is aware of situations like those reported in your articles. Unfortunately, we don't know how frequently they occur, since farmers are reluctant to tell their stories or to take their case to court. However, to assist farmers, OFAC has developed information sheets on the powers and procedures of the OSPCA and the rights of animal owners. These are available from OFAC for the asking.

As indicated by all of those you interviewed, appropriate animal care and handling can be subjective and open to differing opinions. Sometimes there can be a wide gulf between what a farmer and what outside agencies or individuals consider acceptable. To help bridge this gulf, OFAC has a long-standing offer with the OSPCA to accompany an investigator when looking into farm complaints. When we do get called, we often help in making realistic judgments. And, of course, correcting improper situations before the OSPCA gets a complaint benefits not only the farmer, but the animals and the industry as well.

The OFAC Helpline, begun a decade ago, was started specifically to provide farmer-helping-farmer assistance before animal care issues become a matter for the humane society, the court and the media attention they generate. The system for policing animal care is far from perfect but there are some things farmers can do to help protect themselves.

Leslie Ballentine
Public Affairs Director
Ontario Farm Animal Council

A far worse offense

I read the article on Wendell Palmer's unfortunate loss of his pig. It was surprising to me that an action as significant as killing an animal on the farm would be planned without a thorough veterinary examination of the animal first and discussion of treatment and options for care of the animal.

Any inspector (veterinary or Humane Society or SPCA) who is going to assess the welfare of animals on farms should be very familiar with the "Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of farm animals" for the particular species of animal in question. In the appendix of each species-specific codebook is a section, such as the one in the "Pigs" codebook called "Appendix 3 Guidelines for humane killing of pigs on the farm." The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies is a significant participant in the writing of every one of these codebooks.

For a group of officials to arrive at a farm without this much knowledge, intent on improving the welfare of animals through an untrained bout of shooting, is a far worse offense than a farmer continuing to keep an animal with a limp. If the veterinarian on site was convinced that the animal was in such terrible pain that instant death was the only option, why was the animal not taken for a post-mortem exam to gather evidence on the severity of the injury or abuse?

Paul Sharpe
College Professor
Kemptville College/University of Guelph
Professor Sharpe lectures on Pork and Poultry Production and animal Science.

Animal agriculture must work with the OSPCA

"The Case of the Limping Pig" (November 2003) is a really good example of a really bad example. What was reported was unacceptable on so many levels, both for the animals and all the people involved. Individual instances and personalities aside, there are still some important issues to clarify.

It shouldn't be a shock to read that most OSPCA personnel and many vets are not farm animal experts. Just a few vets choose large animal practice each year, and many horse or cow vets haven't euthanized a pig since college. Police should always be a last resort for animal euthanasia. They are trained to protect people, not in how to shoot farm animals.

What wasn't reported were all the cases where agriculture does work well with the OSPCA. The Ontario Farm Animal Council's Helpline has been in place for over 10 years and works well in those cases where a law isn't broken, but animal care is not at an acceptable level. Calls are referred to and from the OSPCA through the Helpline. You never hear about it because it is a confidential service and when the Helpline works, the story never makes the news.

The OSPCA has supported a number of educational resources for farmers and an extensive animal welfare research database. This year's inspector training also included a day to learn about pig farming, including a visit to a well-run operation to see what "normal farm practices" should look like. They don't get calls to model farms very often.

Of course, a day's training does not a pig expert make. In the big picture, it's in animal agriculture's best interest to work together with the OSPCA. Farmers are the experts in farm animal care. We need to continue to be the helpful experts, not antagonistic naysayers.

This story goes along with too many other animal care stories we've read in the papers lately. The fact that these stories are evoking such a strong reaction rings true for me that farmers still take pride in caring for their animals and it's something we take very personally. I would be concerned if it didn't evoke such reactions.

Larry Skinner
Chair, Ontario Pork

Oversight on aphid control

I would like to point out a slight oversight in your recent article, "A disastrous year for soybean aphids," (Better Farming, December 2003) written by Pat Lynch and, it would appear, endorsed by Tracey Baute of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The article focused on the lack of product available to combat the aphid problem on soybeans last year in Ontario and indicated that Matador was the only product registered in Canada to deal with the problem. This is very misleading and, in fact, somewhat insulting. While Matador may be the product of choice in some circumstances, it is not the only product registered in Canada. Dimethoate is a very effective product for aphids on soybeans.

I will be the first to admit my bias, since this is a product we market for the Canadian farmer, but our company and the technical registrant have paid a significant sum to defend this product, as well as have it registered for this use.

I think it would be only fitting that Better Farming include a correction statement in the next issue for the benefit of the Ontario soybean growers.

Jeff Crampton
Product Manager
UAP Canada

Write to us. We welcome the views of all readers. To be published, letters must be written exclusively to Better Farming and include the writer's name, address and telephone number to allow for verification. Letters may be edited, condensed or rejected. Due to space limitations, we suggest a length of less than 300 words.

© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..

back

January 2004

SHORT TAKES

End of growth industry for lawyers attacking pig farms?

Last month, London Superior Court Justice Edward Browne told hog farm protesters in North Glengarry Township to stop hiding behind a numbered company in seeking to quash a building permit issued by Gerry Murphy, the township's chief building official. Ottawa lawyer William Hunter, who represented Murphy, thinks this and other recent court rulings surrounding pig farms could mark the end of what was becoming "a growth industry for lawyers in the province of Ontario."

Hunter represented Ottawa's building inspector in the notorious Sarsfield pig farm case. The Divisional Court recently supported the building inspector's decision to issue a permit in that case. "It's a niche market that's drying up," Hunter concludes, thanks to Bill 81, the province's new nutrient management legislation.

Not surprisingly London lawyer Valerie M'Garry, who bills herself as "the princess of pig shit," disagrees. "Bill 81 and the regulations under it raise the question of what municipal bylaws govern these things (pig barns) are now operative and that's going to be a messy issue to sort out," M'Garry predicts.

M'Garry notes that about 40 municipalities have their own nutrient management or other zoning by-laws, which she believes will prevail despite assurances from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) that provisions of Bill 81 invalidate them. "The law is what a judge believes it is, not what some bureaucrat thinks it is," M'Garry argues.

In the North Glengarry case, Justice Browne ordered M'Garry's client to pay $6,200 towards building official Murphy's legal costs to date and gave protesters a week to come forward and continue their action as individuals. M'Garry, who sent an associate to the hearing, confirms that individual protesters won't be stepping up to the plate.

Murphy estimates his township has spent more than $15,000 fighting the protesters. He labels the dissidents' numbered company, 1562195 Inc., "a straw man" because it has no assets and just one director, Robin Poston of Dalkeith. Poston says he spent $300 to set up the corporation for his fellow protesters.

At a regular council meeting following the hearing, the township voted to refuse an offer from M'Garry of $1,700 as full settlement of the $6,200 judgment against 1562195 Inc.

"To me it was just harassment and frivolous. If you're going to do that kind of thing, you should be prepared to pay," observes North Glengarry mayor Bill Franklin. He says the only argument he's heard for accepting the lesser amount would have been "to bring peace to the community," a prospect he deems unlikely. BF

back

How many mice does it take to make a fur coat?

In most jurisdictions, if you're a trapper by trade, you need a licence to kill. In California, where many trends start, trapping laws require a licence to kill mice!

Sacramento's Animal Protection Institute requires that anyone who takes fur-bearing mammals or non-game animals must purchase a trapping licence by passing a complex test and paying a fee of $78.50, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Since mice have fur and are mammals, they are part of the mandate. The Chronicle story goes on to say that the Department of Fish and Game wouldn't enforce the law on private citizens and individuals. But if a farmer, for example, hired someone to provide rodent control for his pig barn, that person or company could face arrest without a permit.

"I can see the headlines now, 'Mice trappers face jail term'," says Terry Knight of the Lake County Fish and Wildlife Committee, who is keeping his sense of humour about this. "But if you get the permit, the real problem you're facing is that it takes too many mice to make a fur coat." BF

back

Harrowsmith not the apple of his eye

Statements made in Harrowsmith Country Lifemagazine in October about apples "being doused with chemicals every time it rains" and having the "dubious honour of containing more pesticide residue than any other item in the supermarket," have been called "totally irresponsible" by John Gardner, an OMAF apple specialist.

"There are safety assurance programs here in Ontario." Gardner explains that "those people who monitor residues to parts per trillion find it hard to find any risk in apples."

"Reduced risk" sprays are literally gone in three or four days, says Gardner. Growers don't need to spray every time it rains as some chemistries, like fungicides, have properties that allow for retention and redistribution, lasting 10-14 days. As well, applications are stopped long before harvest. "The product, as it is presented is fine. They're not going to hurt anybody that I know of," Gardner explains in terms of residue sprays.

The Harrowsmith article used information from an October 2000 article, says editor Tom Cruickshank. He recalls apples and raisins being at the top of the list for pesticide residues. But, he adds, "If our figures are out of date, then we deserve a slap on the wrist."

Cruickshank insists the story "wasn't really directed at apple growers," but was intended to suggest some hardier apple varieties for the hobbyists among its 1.2 million readers, who may plant a tree or two, not a whole orchard. "It wasn't supposed to be a condemnation of the apple," says Cruickshank.

"The whole point of the item is 'Why are we using pesticides at all? Why don't we aim for orchards full of apples that don't require as much or any pesticides?'" BF

back

Is this a cow or a heifer?

Argentina's genetically modified cow, Pampa Mansa, is a value-added, early bloomer. She began producing milk containing human growth hormone (hGH) at the age of 10 months, researchers say.

Pampa, a cloned Jersey, could be the answer to beating the high cost of hGH, a needed protein for some 1,500 Argentine children with growth deficiencies.

Bio Sidus, the company who created Pampa by inserting a human gene into the animal's nucleus, anticipates she will produce five kilograms of this protein annually. In theory, that's enough to provide all the deficient children in Argentina with their daily dose.

Researchers still have to figure out how to isolate and purify hGH from Jersey bovines on an industrial scale. It is estimated they could lose between 50-80 per cent of the protein during processing.

Anticipated release date for this alternate hGH is 2008. The company hopes to produce it as much as 90 per cent cheaper than current market prices. BF

back

Ground up piglets good for growing alligators

Pig farmers measure their progress by comparing their operations to industry norms. Pounds of feed to pounds of gain, days to market, piglets weaned per sow, and other criteria are all related to "industry standards." For Iowa pork producers, there may be a new ratio with which to deal -- pounds of alligator raised per pound of feed.

The Iowa Pork Industry Center is funding a project to convert farrowing barn mortalities into value-added products made from alligators. At the Western Research Farm near Ames, operators keep two alligators in a three-by-eight-foot tank in water kept at 80 F degrees and feed them ground up nursery piglet mortalities. The thought is that farrowing barns are at nearly ideal temperatures for raising alligators. Over 12 months, the alligators gained 32.1 pounds and consumed 141.6 pounds of ground meat. That's a feed conversion of 4.41 to 1. The rate of gain, and consumption of ground pig meat, is expected to double in the next year.

Researchers note that the feed-to-gain ratio for alligators of that size is somewhat lower than the industry standard, likely because the water is still on the cool side for the reptiles. Also, filtering the water in the Iowa alligator tanks remains a challenge. The southern United States produces 500,000 alligators yearly, about 80 per cent of them on farms.

Wonder what the ratio is between pounds of gain and pairs of shoes? BF

back