|
October 2002
Good potential for flax fibre production in Canada, but also major hurdles to overcomeI recently noticed the articles on flax in your May issue and would like to contribute some perspective on the challenges facing any flax fibre initiative here. I am the former managing director of Fibrex Quebec and have nine years' commercial experience in fibre flax production in the United States and Canada. I believe strongly in the potential for flax fibre production in Eastern Canada, but I want to emphasize that this is not an easy crop, and considerable investment of time and capital will be necessary to establish any sort of production here.Though Canada certainly could become a major player in flax fibre production, there are major hurdles to be overcome before that can be realized. There is no existing domestic expertise or infrastructure for flax fibre production at all, so everything would have to be built literally from nothing. In particular, there is no domestic expertise in fibre production, and the quality control issues, especially in the field, are considerable. In addition, the necessary specialized machines are not produced here (even the seeders are different), and it is necessary to create solid relationships with reliable players in the industry to assure markets. Having spent a great deal of time talking to players in the industry, both in Europe and in China, this is not a given. It is absolutely necessary to find the right partners and even then it is unlikely, for a number of reasons, that any foreign partner will invest substantial amounts here. Raising the necessary capital will be the sole responsibility of those on the Canadian side. And the numbers are high. If you really want 30,000 hectares, you are looking at nearly $75-$100 million of capital investment, nearly all of which is in the necessary machinery.
Having dedicated much of my life to flax fibre, I remain a strong advocate for its future and have no doubt that Canada can become a world leader in flax fibre. Nevertheless, if there is serious interest, it must be combined with a well-developed business plan, adequate capitalization and, above all, a long-term investment approach. There is no flax fibre production in North America right now at all, despite the fact that there have been a number of projects - at least seven over the past 10 years, I think. This is a warning to the wise, if nothing else.
Shallow reasoning behind government ag fundingYour stories "Queen's Park puts $35,000 into ag magazine venture," and Magazine subsidies -- where hypocrisy is king" (Better Farming, May, 2002) were a beautiful piece of "discovery" writing.At first I read the names of the quints who got the feasibility study idea and obtained the funding. Then I learned of the existence of a suit involving one of those partners against another. And then there was the fact that the consultant working for the group feels that (paraphrased) more money is needed to complete the venture. On further reading, it seems to me the incident places focus on the shallow reasoning behind the "funding" policies of the current Ontario government. These programs -- Healthy Futures, Rural Job Strategy -- have been designed by government with maximum focus on the image and public relations value to the governing party itself. There is little effort made to focus on the end purpose of the funding which is to provide things like employment or environmental upgrades. Ontario's rural communities desperately need funding assistance on basic infrastructure - roads and water supply. The Ontario farm community needs both safety net support and incentives for environment related investments. If and when these measures become reality, will the programs be designed with a real clear end purpose? Or will we see more "soft" funding programs that are vague in focus and designed mainly for creating public image opportunities for the government itself?
Over a year ago, Better Farming came up with a great report on municipal sewage by-pass events. This piece on the $35,000 grant is another revealing look behind the scenes in rural Ontario!
Needed: more voices like Barry Wilson'sThank you, Better Farming, and a select few other farm media, for reporting the recent evisceration of Manitoba Co-operator by its new owners. At a time when the influence of the agriculture sector in society is on the down curve, and when urban media usually carry only sensational coverage of farm issues, we need more voices like the one offered by The Co-operator, not less.Along those lines, let's hear more from columnist Barry Wilson (The Hill). I believe he is the lone farm reporter left on Parliament Hill. He usually has a better knowledge of what is going on in Agriculture Canada than many of (us) the employees. Bob McClelland Cantley, Que.
Customers must be aware, not gullibleRegarding your story, "Manitoba farm weekly's sale spurs fears about ag media independence," (Better Farming, March 2002), Keystone Agricultural Producers President Don Dewar says: "I'm not sure whether our organization can do anything. But they (the new owners) need to know that we have 5,000 members, most of whom have subscriptions. We'd like to think customers influence decisions."I wish customers did have more influence. They don't, otherwise we'd have Coca Cola that tasted like it did in the 1950s and Nike would pay its workers decent salaries, Wal-Mart wouldn't use slave children in its Burmese plants, Liz Claiborne would have safe working conditions and Gildan (the shirt manufacturer) wouldn't make its female workers urinate in cans in front of their bosses to be tested for pregnancy. We'd still have appliances made here in Canada, if we had a say, for our appliances were good and lasted longer than the warranty. For this to happen, customers must be aware. Most people live in their little dream worlds of Hockey Night in Canada, soap operas and believe everything they read in the mainstream press and see on TV. We, the public, are an unsophisticated lot, gullible not only to the point of stupidity, but reaching it perfectly. Ever increasingly, we vote for rightwing governments, yet are disappointed when the government of the day cuts taxes for the rich and cuts services to the public. (Isn't insanity just doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results?) So if you think that your new owner will allow freedom of the press, when it isn't allowed in ANY of the other mainstream media outlets (even CBC news), you are naive, too. And your customers, by and large, won't notice, anyway, alas! Why don't you start your own paper? Sue Shaw Port Alice, B.C.
Educating the public about changeI am writing to commend your magazine on another excellent issue (Better Pork, April 2002). As a group that educates the public about animal agriculture, I am regularly asked by urbanites about farm size and how it is changing.The article "Ontario's livestock industry -- the advantages of size" by Jim Dalrymple does an excellent job of explaining the factors that have contributed to this shift and the implications of the changes. Carolyn Barkey Program Co-ordinator Ontario Farm Animal Council
April 2002
Extraordinary cattle deserve great picturesAs I began reading through my February 2002 issue of Better Farming, I was reflecting on how this was an excellent magazine, giving good relevant information. Then I came to page 51 (Do milk vending machines have a future in Ontario?) and simply couldn't believe my eyes.Given that dairy farmers in this country over the past number of decades have been doing all they can to upgrade of their herds, so they would NOT have a cow that looks like the one pictured, I couldn't believe it was there. If you want to be taken seriously for what you have to say in your articles, you simply cannot also include a disgusting picture like that. We have some extraordinary cattle in Ontario, with great pictures. Include them and then we dairy farmers will be in a better frame of mind to read your excellent article. Doug Wilson Port Perry
Acknowledge the real risks and consequencesI enjoyed the January 2002 issue of Better Farming. Keep up the good work!One of the interesting items in that issue was the continued arguments concerning manure management. While the arguments are logically correct and the facts are valid, they convey the very wrong impression that we are in the final stages of the matter -- that is, that we are cleaning up the minor details. In fact, we have completely skipped the fundamental question, which is whether we should be doing this in the first place? We scientists and engineers are good at what we do. We try to anticipate every negative contingency and then design the safeguards to avert them. Usually we succeed, but not always. Any designer, right up to and including the folks at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will tell you there are no risk-free options. And it's not our job to make the very tough policy decisions regarding the direction in which we would like to steer our society's development (no pun intended). Let's hope that the people we elect to make these tough decisions start doing so. We have to hope that those who govern won't get buried in the details of science and design, or income stabilization, and in so doing lose sight of the fundamental principles that they must adhere to. They can't get tied up in or distracted by debates about whether or not leaks from either a large manure storage tank or a landfill site will occur. These things have already happened. The real issue for elected representatives is to acknowledge the real risk, and the real consequences. The overriding and incontrovertible fact about contamination of an aquifer is simply this: it's irreversible. T. M. Rothwell, P.Eng. Mount Forest
More than a 100-gallon spillIn regard to your February Short Takes item, "Something stinks in eastern Ontario," I attended the Kincardine Township Council meeting where Elite Swine pleaded with the Township to allow them to exceed, up to double, their liquid manure application rates for a couple of weeks until they could get rid of all their liquid.Your item must have been reported rather tongue in cheek because as you know there was a lot more going on here than a 100-gallon spill. You did not mention that Elite admitted their storage tanks were full at two operations and that millions of raw liquid manure that should have been managed since last May were not. You did not report that the Townships Nutrient Management Peer Review Committee and Elite Swine reluctantly reached an agreement which allowed manure application outside of the corporation's previously agreed plan and that this only cost Elite a meager $15,000. Many of our local family farmers and ratepayers could only scoff at this, but nevertheless it was a compromise our elected officials chose to defend rather than taking on expensive court challenges to which we heard Elite allude at the Township meeting. Anyone wondering about the going rate to circumvent Nutrient Management Plans now has a good idea of how much to budget. John Power Point Clark
February 2002
Needed: a deadstock program that's fair to Ontario farmersYou have written a lot about the environment. Deadstock should be an environmental concern for everyone. Something has to be done about dead animal pickup. Every year the terms of pickup change and prices rise. There is no competition in the deadstock business. Operators can charge whatever they want. I am willing to pay my fair share, but I am fed up with being taken advantage of.I finish more than 8,000 pigs per year. On average, I lost about 300 pigs per year over the past five years. During that time, my deadstock pickup costs went from about $360 per year to $1,337. In 2000, I spent about $5,000 to install a walk-in freezer to make things easier and more efficient for my local collector. I pay extra costs for electricity to run this freezer unit and also have to deal with repair costs. The thanks I get is a tougher contract from the local collector. The company has now placed a cap of "five or six" on the number of pigs on a single pickup. Recently I was refused service because I had 13 pigs in my freezer. As shown in your October 2001 article, "Ontario ministries differ on incineration option," government departments are contradicting each other about incineration. One official says it's illegal in Ontario; another says it's a good idea. Composting may work for small-scale operations, but I am not convinced by what I have seen that it's the answer for larger farms. It's time for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to get involved. We need a deadstock program that provides fair treatment for farmers in all parts of the province. Pierre Malboeuf Curran
Where are poultry figures?I'm a cash cropper in Thedford (Lambton County), and also involved in seed production and processing. I have been wondering for quite some time why we always see cost of production for grains in magazines and newspapers time and time again. This subject is being played to the point of boredom.Because low prices in the grain industry just won't go away, my son is interested in building a broiler barn and getting into chicken production to make a lot of money. My question is; why do I never see cost of production studies for broilers or layers. Is this a secret? Gary Struyf Thedford
January 2002
Misleading comments on Geene nutrient planI feel compelled to reply to John Power's letter (Better Farming, December 2001,), as Mr. Power was writing about a nutrient management plan with which I was intimately involved. To put it simply, Mr. Power is writing about the wrong plan. I'll explain.An early version of Gys Geene's Nutrient Management Plan was released to members of the local activist group, PROTECT, who reviewed the plan on behalf of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Huron-Kinloss, a group of which Mr. Power is a member. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs approved the plan with the supporting yield documents. However, the edits requested by PROTECT were made. The manure application rate was low enough in the original plan that lowering the yields to the Township average did not change the rate of manure application. The updated plan was resubmitted and approved by the OMAFRA. Township average yields were used to obtain the building permit. Yet Powers and his associates continually mislead people in order to raise funds for their cause. Mr. Powers is correct, The Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Huron-Kinloss is not a local cottage owners group. Two thirds of these people are definitely not local. The group promotes people to send form letters to the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment sends copies of their responses to my office. About one third of the addresses are located within 10 miles of the building site. Having farmed in the area all of my life, I recognize five addresses that belong to farmers. Of the five, there are three with livestock and one is a retired livestock farmer. There were 305 replies, so the five farm responses represent less than 1.7 per cent of the "good cross-section of the township" to which Mr. Powers refers. The other two-thirds of the protestors are from Kitchener, London, Toronto, Alaska, Massachusetts, Oregon and points between. The addresses remind me of a headline last May in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, "Farmers ruin Kitchener's playground." Combined, they further demonstrate the belief that it is okay to earn enough income from processing and selling primary resources to afford a country retreat. On the weekend, it's okay to lace up the Nikes, jump in a gas guzzling SUV and drive down the asphalt road to get to it. But it's not okay for the farm family with four children to have an equal income for providing primary resources. John, if you want to do something, try convincing the World Trade Organization that farmers need to be paid for producing food with global standards of production. It's not fair to ask one family to answer all of Ontario's tough questions.
Michael Hunter
MD sees "big potential for trouble"I read with interest and some alarm the debate in your December issue about who sets the rules for nutrient management and for further livestock operations expansion ("Court give municipal bureaucrats "the power of God over agricultural producers").As a physician and part-time farmer in Chatham-Kent, I am very concerned about water contamination (both wells and municipal water) and the effects on the health of the citizens who drink this water. It bothers me to read about the search for legal loopholes to overturn municipal bylaws without concern for the reasons for their creation. We must be prepared for these new challenges (massive liquid manure production) or accept the very undesirable consequences of no regulation. Three cheers for the Council who recognized the changing times, and the need for new bylaws (whoever creates them), illustrating the power of people and not God. We do not know what level of bacterial contamination is necessary to pollute our waters and, if that is reached, whether it can be reversed. Bacteria are very adaptable to their environment and can rapidly become resistant to many treatments. The medical profession learned this the hard way when we increased the dose of antibiotics to eradicate an infection. We soon found out that this was successful in the short-term, but the long-term effects were disastrous. I recently cultured drainage water from a field that had many thousands of gallons of liquid manure spread on it. The culture grew E. coli (not typed), streptococcus and pseudomonas all bacteria that could only come from feces (liquid manure). If these bacteria reach a critical level in that watershed (Rondeau Bay), then their eradication may not be possible and they will perpetuate themselves. If they are from livestock that are being treated with antibiotics, then those animals could very well develop resistant strains which would be very difficult to kill. Certainly, human wastes and their disposal present the same problem unless properly managed. We have a big potential for trouble in uncontrolled nutrient management and we cannot predict the future. If it takes a municipal council to call for changes, then so be it, Legal loopholes shouldn't slow the process. There is a similarity between bacterial resistance, herbicide resistance and pesticide problems. I don't consider myself to be a "nuisance"" in wanting to protect myself, my family and friends from the threat of illness, be it known or unknown, at this time.
James J. Laird, MD
|