The controversy over the use of life sciences, the other name for the practices involved in genetically modifying organisms to give them desirable traits, is coming to the forefront again.

This fall, after nearly two years of discussions, a committee representing 55 groups with interests in how genetically modified organisms are (or are not) labelled, is expected to have completed its work. It was in Better Farming's inaugural issue nearly two years ago that we first explored the theme of voluntary labelling foods containing ingredients that had been modified using the newest, and often contentious, breeding technologies. Those technologies and their uses are discussed in this issue's cover story.

Other controversies, specifically the use and spreading of manure from livestock facilities, continue to hound Ontario agriculture in the aftermath of the Walkerton tragedy. Livestock groups favour the province's proposed new rules governing intensive livestock operations, so perhaps it was predictable that the urban media should find fault with them. The Toronto Star referred to the new rules, to be phased in over three years for large farms and five years for smaller operations, as "about the slowest, laziest start you could imagine" and blamed consultations with lobby groups for delaying the process for the year since Walkerton.

Back to urban Ontario's perceptions of agriculture. Earlier this year, just as the summer was starting, there was an uproar in the western Ontario press about a farmer's plan to build a couple of new pig barns near Ripley. The newspaper articles carried little information pertinent to the case, such as the size of the pigs involved, mostly just complaints from local recreational property owners. A newspaper columnist's enraged view was that this "factory farm" producing millions of litres of liquid manure was going to ruin the favourite vacation area of Kitchener and Waterloo residents.

Perhaps the columnist was only stretching to make a connection to his hometown audience, or perhaps he reflects a new perception of large-scale, modern farm operations.

There is an old saying that newspapers should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." If that holds true in this case, then those with second homes along Lake Huron are considered to be "the afflicted" and farmers who are trying to make a living are "the comfortable." We'll watch carefully to see if this view gains credence in the coming months. BF

           ROBERT IRWIN and DON STONEMAN

A considerable amount of space in this month's issue of Better Farming has been devoted to the unconventional. Unconventional agriculture that is. Organic growers frequently complain that their industry doesn't get enough coverage in the farm press. Others say that organic food, which accounts for less than one per cent of national consumption, gets more ink than it deserves.

Writing about organic agriculture has been a challenge. In spite of the volumes devoted to it in recent years, this industry has remained somewhat of a mystery. It's always been hard to put a finger on organic food production and see where it fits into the scene in Ontario and in Canada.

In retrospect, that may be because more has been written about what organic agriculture isn't -- big farms, machinery, chemical fertilizers and weed control -- and not enough about what organic agriculture is. We hope that this month's Better Farming is able to add clarity to this often-cloudy subject.

A few things are important to note. First, there are relatively few certified organic farmers in this province. As of last year, only about 500 growers had the approval of certifying agencies and were producing to the specifications of those bodies. Those growers are all different sizes.

Second, the number of organic producers and the amount of product that they put up for sale in Ontario is growing, but not nearly as fast as demand, which is largely being filled from the United States, and in particular from California.

Agriculture Canada estimates that the organic market in Canada last year was worth about $875 million. That is certainly nothing to sneeze at, and it is something for conventional agriculturalists to keep in mind.

Something else that is important to note. Organic producers face the same challenges as small- to medium-scale farmers everywhere else in North America. Margins are getting thinner. Costs are rising faster than prices. Growers find it increasingly difficult to elbow their way into supermarkets as the grocery chains consolidate and seek to buy from fewer and fewer sellers. The big grocers would rather buy from a large supplier across the continent than from a small supplier next door. Conventional growers -- those who produce 99 per cent of our food -- have also been hurt by this phenomenon for years.

The organic farmers that we spoke to are entrepreneurs. They are carving out their own markets and establishing a rapport with their customers. By developing trust, they are able to sell a product that their buying public wants. This passion is something that conventional farmers need to grasp as well. Imagine the challenges and pressures involved in growing an acre of onions organically, knowing that labour costs to weed and harvest that acre will total $2,500 before the season is through.

Another point: Surveys show that the demand for organic produce doesn't come from concerns about animal welfare, about concern for the environment, or about consuming food near to where it is grown -- these considerations are still far back in the minds of even the consumer of organic products. Organic food markets are growing because of concerns about food safety.

That should be food for thought for all raisers of food as they watch another growing season progress. BF

           ROBERT IRWIN and DON STONEMAN

The last time that Better Farming went to press in March, farmers had rallied, apparently successfully in Ottawa and elsewhere, for a better deal from the federal government on oilseeds and grain supports. What a difference a few days made. Almost instantly the media turned on agriculture. The examples are too numerous to mention. Rants from "reduce taxation" ideologues were to be expected, but the base of attack was broader than that. Better Farming editors found another clue as to what was happening in the words of Toronto Star columnist Richard Gwyn.

Headlined "Farmers headed for extinction," Gwyn's column asserted that the 'New Canada' is urban-oriented and really doesn't care about the 'old' power base in rural Ontario. In the past, "farmers occupied the status of icons within the Canadian political landscape. Today they are just one more interest group. But an insufficiently powerful interest group to justify taxing urbanites for."

In columnist Gwyn's view, tax-cutter Premier Mike Harris is an unlikely ally. But our Premier isn't always predictable. When Harris announced another $90 million for agriculture, The Globe and Mail quoted the Premier as defending the subsidy by saying that consumers weren't paying enough for their groceries at the store. "You can pay a tax subsidy. Or you can pay the price that you should be paying for these products," the paper quoted Harris as saying.

Farmers shouldn't take too much solace in Harris being on side. One of our readers pointed out that Harris doesn't mind being "politically uncorrect." Last fall, he hosted a symposium on hunting and didn't flinch as political bullets were fired his way. We know about how popular hunters are with the urbanites who cringe when they see a road-killed rabbit on the road. It's sobering that agriculture is put on the same par.

So how does farming become "politically uncorrect?" Editors didn't have to look too far back in our archives to see that this was coming. November's Better Farming quoted Environics International Ltd pollster Chris Coulter as noting that focus groups on biotechnology showed that public sympathy for farm causes and their woes was waning and that consumers are beginning to lose respect for farmers.

Combine that with the bad publicity about pollution from "factory" farms and you get a picture of agriculture that urban and suburban Ontario finds unappealing.

Does agriculture need to find itself a new place in the public's image? It certainly looks like it. This image may be as important to cultivate as any field that farmers are putting a planter into in this month of May.

           ROBERT IRWIN and DON STONEMAN

What if you have a party and nobody comes? That's a question eastern Ontario farmers have been grappling with, holding polite demonstrations in the hopes that attending media would spread the word about the need to provide Ontario producers with a level economic playing field. Except for the Quebec farm paper La Terre de Chez Nous even the farm press had inexplicably ignored the situation until mid February.

The media, apparently, sees it something like this: When British Columbia farmer Nick Parsons drove across Canada and into the nation's capital on a combine last fall it made a nice human interest story. But where's the news value in farmers driving their tractors into nearby cities and towns? Apparently farmers wanting money is considered ho-hum.

Last month's hastily-organized demonstration in Cornwall, beginning on page 36, featured 1,135 farm machines and trucks in an impressive and orderly convoy through the city. Those who attended probably account for a third of the full-time farmers in the nine surrounding eastern counties. Local television and radio coverage ratcheted up a little after the Cornwall demonstration. At press time, the mainstream national media continued to ignore the issue, but with an emergency debate on agriculture taking up time in the House of Commons, there were signs politicians were beginning to pay attention.

There are some very committed and capable grassroots farmers behind the growing uprising. Hopefully, as this magazine is landing in producers' mailboxes, agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief is announcing the $300 million Ontario farmers were promised during the election. If the money isn't forthcoming by the time Mr. Vanclief is scheduled to address this year's annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Ottawa on March 2, you can be sure the long-sought-after media coverage will finally materialize. Producers will, by then, have found a way to make it happen. Count on it.

While looking about for a suitable photograph to illustrate a freelance writer's story on British Columbia research about better ways of raising dairy calves (page 78) we visited the Cornwell brothers, of Norwich, Oxford County. Dan Cornwell explained that, several years ago, they adopted a system seen at an operation in the United States in order to raise calves from their 230-cow herd. Calves are raised in separate pens in a greenhouse containing about 20 at a time.

Mortality in hutches is about five per cent. In the greenhouse, it dropped to one per cent and, as of mid-January, Cornwell hadn't lost a single calf in the previous year. The cost of the greenhouse is about the same as for 20 hutches, Dan Cornwell explained, and labour costs are reduced and working conditions are improved.

There are operations here in Ontario setting a very good example of humane handling of calves and all the wise men aren't in universities. But we already knew that, didn't we?

           ROBERT IRWIN and DON STONEMAN

A "love-hate relationship," is how one person featured in this month's cover story described their courier experience. That struck a chord at Better Farming where, each week, dozens of courier deliveries move to and from our offices and news bureaus on rural routes and in Ontario towns.

We've found there are some pretty outstanding drivers, but what really distinguishes a good courier company, we think, is how it deals with problem deliveries and with rural customers -- cynics among us might say the two are synonymous. Are you receiving most of your deliveries on time? Does your courier force you to wait hours on the telephone or brush you off when your parcel goes missing? Perhaps you get immediate attention and even compensation when it's appropriate?

We have our favourites, and also one company we consider the 'courier from hell.' Sound familiar? We would like to hear your stories. Send us an email, fax or letter describing your encounters with couriers. In a future issue, we will summarize our findings and publish the best and worst of the courier tales we receive.

During our reporting on couriers, an alarming issue arose. One delivery company based in western Ontario told us that some customers they contacted for directions to their farm neither knew neither what their emergency fire code (civic number) was, nor how to find it out. This should sound a warning bell. Every rural family should have that information prominently displayed beside or on the telephone. Lives may depend on it.

This issue of Better Farming makes note of what may be a milestone for the organic movement in Ontario. Certified products are going to be competing in the mainstream of grocery marketing. A news release from grocery giant Loblaws boasted that an organic apple juice from apples grown and pressed in this province was going to be sold in the main food section of their stores under the President's Choice label, head to head with conventionally produced juices.

An editor went to a local store that stocks President's Choice products to scout it out. Alas, he was disappointed to find a stock boy busy putting together a new "organic" section in the store with a handful of organic products and an antiseptic cleanser recommended for wiping down kitchen countertops. The apple juice was selling for $1 a bottle more than the Loblaws announcement had touted. It's a lesson to us that the final marketers of our products don't always do what they say they will.

Or perhaps we knew that already.

           ROBERT IRWIN and DON STONEMAN

The end of an old year brings the inevitable look ahead to the coming 12 months and the year that follows as well. So much in agriculture depends on looking forward and this month's theme -- agricultural research that will affect your future -- is a reminder of that reality. Here at Better Farming, we are struck by how much good research there is that will change your lives as farmers here in Ontario. But there is a sobering thought as well. Other countries are doing the same. The innovation treadmill that keeps agriculture in an ever-changing state shows no signs of slowing down.

The potential for change is enormous. Take the dairy industry, for example, where Canada has for decades been a world leader, but is now being challenged. In our cover story, starting on page 20, the University of Guelph is looking at cloning elite animals to bring still more productive livestock to the farm. And, at labs in Quebec, the Semex Alliance is looking to the emerging science of genomics to resolve the problems associated with the increasingly expensive task of finding new herd sires. So much of the success in Canada's current system still depends on the luck of the draw.

Meanwhile, across the ocean, the Europeans are looking at reducing dairy labour costs by shifting to once-a-day milking. (See Letter From Europe, page 52). At a time when we are looking at robotic milkers, what a labour-saving concept, with other benefits as well! It's an example of how sometimes the simplest way of dealing with an overwhelming issue is to take another tack.

Also in our cover story, the Ontario Weather Network, a group of researchers with a little funding, perform a labour of love. They are adapting technology to develop a system that will give crop producers a plethora of information. Crop farmers linked into the system will be told if the time is right to turn on their storage bin fans to reduce the risk of crop spoilage. Wheat farmers will receive warnings if they need to spray to fight diseases. Vegetable growers will know if they need to irrigate to maintain yields, and even if insect counts are high enough to warrant a crop-saving pesticide application.

All this reminds us that we can't really get away from the weather. All we can do is try to make the very best out of what comes our way. The early December snowstorms that blanketed Ontario and brought much of this heavily populated area to a standstill emphasizes that.

Weather was the overriding theme in 2000. Bad weather prevented crops from being planted. It made them more susceptible to a plethora of diseases that decimated yields and reduced quality. (See Crops, page 34). The same diseases threaten to repeat in this year's crop if conditions are right.

All the more reason to look at new technologies. We may never be able to control the weather, but with technology we may reduce the inevitable damage that it does to your farms and to your hopes and dreams.

           ROBERT IRWIN and DON STONEMAN