|
October 2000
Our readers say thanksOn behalf of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, I would like to commend you on your article, "The Sewage Double Standard," (Better Farming, August/September). This well-researched piece brought to light an issue that many urban reporters have overlooked in the media debacle of recent months - that of urban contributions to the groundwater contamination Ontario faces. The Ontario Cattlemen's Association agrees that farmers certainly do have a significant role to play in protecting Ontario's water quality, but it is no different from that of any other provincial resident. Almost all of Ontario's 60,000 farm families rely on groundwater for their drinking water and so protection of this valuable commodity is essential to them.
We've always assumed that the urban population is equally responsible for their sewage treatment. To learn differently is nothing short of frightening. In the majority of the media coverage since May, journalists have felt comfortable in making unproven connections between agriculture and the Walkerton tragedy. It is nice to know that some publications are eager to research the facts more thoroughly in an attempt to give both sides of the story.
Editor's note: After reading the coverage in the local weekly newspapers, which have shown one side of the sewage issue, your articles might shed some light on urban people's criticism of rural people. It's nice to see someone reporting the other side. Ed Laithwaite Goderich
August/September 2000
What a breath of fresh air to know that there's an editor of a young magazine willing to uphold all those journalistic principles. As a journalist, (when I'm not tending to our hog operation) I can empathize with the situation you must often face -- prospective advertisers dictating your editorial content. I wish I had a dime for every time I was faced with it in my 15 years in the business. Regrettably, not all of my past editors agreed with my --and and your-standards. Keep up the great work and, more importantly, your integrity. Your readers appreciate it.
Denis Grignon
Clarifying the dead stock issueIn response to a letter in your May issue ("Dairy board stumbling block"), Dairy Farmers of Ontario and Ontario Cattlemen's Association have committed considerable time and effort to reaching a solution for the issues surrounding the viability of dead stock removal in Ontario. Both organizations are of the view that individual producers have a responsibility to dispose of dead stock in an environmentally acceptable manner. Neither organization is supportive of a check-off from their members in order to provide a "free" service across the province.Both organizations have met several times with dead stock dealers and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to deal with the issue. To suggest that one individual is a "stumbling block" to resolving this issue is irresponsible, to say the least. Gord Coukell has contributed significantly to trying to resolve the issue. In the interest of a positive resolution to the issue, all industry stakeholders need to work together. Our organizations remain committed to this goal.
John Core, Chair May 1, 2000 Why OMAFRA must change its waysOver the next few months, OMAFRA will be changing the way that services are delivered to farmers. I would like to set the record straight as to why we are changing. I believe that OMAFRA has a duty to best utilize resources to deliver on the ministry's technology transfer and rural economic development core businesses. These are the core businesses that farmers have told us they need to compete in the new global economy.Provincial agriculture and rural organizations and OMAFRA share a large number of challenges. When the organizations which work on behalf of Ontario's farmers and rural communities focus on issues such as water quality and availability, adoption of new technology and research results, pesticide registration, livestock medicine regulation, nutrient management planning and intensive livestock conflicts or the telecommunication and other infrastructure needs of rural Ontario, they look to OMAFRA for assistance and support. And if OMAFRA does not deal successfully with those challenges and many others, the future of Ontario agriculture and the prospects for rural Ontario residents will suffer. The number and complexity of the issues facing Ontario's agricultural community continue to grow. OMAFRA must remain flexible and adaptable in order to tackle them aggressively. Our new structure will provide specialized services that have not been provided before (such as a veal specialist) and make access to those specialists available equally across the province. You will be able to access those specialists from your home instead of driving to an office. We fully appreciate the valued services our field office network and staff delivered to rural Ontario clients for many years. But when ministry management presented me with their assessment that the long-term interests of the agriculture sector and rural Ontario would be better served refocusing ministry resources on today's and tomorrow's priorities, I reached the same conclusion. The re-alignment we are implementing focuses our resources on providing more access to specialists, and away from the bricks and mortars of the field office structure. We will continue to support the farm sector in a big way. In addition to our ongoing funding of research at a level higher than any other province, we are expanding our roster of staff specialized in bringing the results of that research and new developments from around the world to producers here in Ontario. That information will be made available in many ways. Like progressive farm organizations in the province we will make ease of access to this information a priority by employing traditional and non-traditional means. I am confident that the re-alignment of resources will serve farmers well in securing a long-term future for Ontario agriculture and rural Ontario. Ernie Hardeman Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Dairy board stumbling blockWe have learned that there are funds available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, but the dead stock industry is not eligible to receive these funds directly. These monies, however, are available to the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and the dairy board. They can receive funds and then distribute them throughout the dead stock industry. The Ontario Cattlemen's Association is willing to do this, but the dairy board is not.We feel that the stumbling block here is dairy board member Gord Coukell. We feel that in order any progress to be made, Gord Coukell needs to be removed from his present position with the dairy board. We can help by contacting their office and demanding his removal, effective immediately. If funds were dispersed amongst our industry, there would be free, non-fee service available to you, the farmer. As it stands in the future, services fees will have to rise to help offset our debt-load. Everyone can only benefit from free, uninterrupted service. When strike action by the dead stock removal and recycling industry comes to your township, you will only have one person to blame. That person is Gord Coukell. Don Montague Owner, Ed Peconi and Sons Ltd. Woodville ON
February 1, 2000 CFBMC spendingWith interest I read your story about Canadian Farm Business Management Council spending habits. I was invited by the Farm Credit Corporation to go to a four day conference at the Banff Springs Hotel in Banff Alberta, this month at my own cost, as part of a very select group. Only about four per cent of FCC clients got this invitation. With 54,000 clients, there would be 4,000 invitations. I am certain I am not going there: the reason? Money.
Luke Schilder,
Saying 'No' to GMOsI would like to congratulate you on publishing "In praise of loose cannon" by Ann Clark in your December issue. It was by far the most insightful and informative article I have read in your publication so far. I'm one of a growing number of farmers who are opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and disturbed by the fact our governments and farming associations blindly support and push along biotechnology. This shows their unbroken support of multinational biotechnology companies instead of Canadian family farmers.So far GE crops have shown no real benefit to us farmers. By choosing GE crops we elect to be more dependent on foreign inputs to our farms. We give up another piece of the precious little bit of independence we have left. By growing GE crops we ignore our consumers demands for GM free food and risk to produce crops that will yield lower prices or may not have a market at all. No other industry group would put so much time and money into a product that the consumers find objectionable. This is fatalistic marketing. International investment companies are pulling their support for bioengineering. Monsanto is starting to spin off some of its GE crop companies, consumers everywhere are rejecting GE food, and yes, even Monsanto's own cafeteria has banned GE food at their UK head office! Once again farmers who had the least to gain from it all in the first place are being left to weather the storm. With independent research into the effects of GM crops producing ever more serious allegations of health and environmental risk, and an outraged public at hand, immediate damage control is in order. The only right thing to do now from an ethical, public affairs and business point of view is for all farming associations and levels of government to call for a moratorium on GMOs or at the very least strict and to the point mandatory labeling of GM foods.
Lorenz Eppinger
Beef about large farmsI feel there should be a distinction made between a large farm which is a family corporation and corporate farming.By corporate ownership, I mean a corporation where workers do not own the business and do not have the decision making powers. I attended the Canadian Farm Women's convention in November in Saskatchewan and heard a gentleman from Heartland Livestock speak about its experience in the intensive hog business. Heartland has now six `projects' (they call them projects as opposed to farms.) Each project has four sow barns 2,400 sows.. and four to eight finishing barns. Heartland put up half of the money and leveraged the other half, a $5 million investment. Heartland has 18 full-time employees. The gentleman also complained of bearing the full expensive cost of roads, hydro, and so on. My questions to him were: 1) how many family farms does this displace? There was no answer. 2 Do the employees own shares? The answer was No. If that investment went to family farmers, there would be many farms sharing the infrastructure costs, perhaps a church would be built, perhaps a school, perhaps businesses and services.... lo and behold we would have a rural community! Who owns Heartland Livestock? Saskatchewan Wheat Pool! The so acclaimed cooperative that believes in family farms. My argument is not the size of family farms, but the ownership and decision making. By the way, in December the 18 Heartland employees went on strike!
Donna Lunn
|