Our Story   ARCHIVE   Research   Issues March 2001 October 2000 June/July 2000 February 2000 January 2000 December 1999 November 1999   Coming Events Contact Us   back to Current Issue

RESEARCH June/July 2000 International plowing match draws crowds to Elora research station One of Canada's biggest experimental stations is in the IPM spotlight by Laura McDonald, Geoff Thomson and Corie Lok Left to its own devices, the Elora research station (ERS) normally attracts about 10,000 visitors every year. But, in 2000, that number will skyrocket when the International Plowing Match takes place on its doorstep in Wellington County this September. It's a great opportunity for the 34-year-old operation to show the expected 100,000 visitors what makes it Ontario's most diverse agricultural research entity. Like the other 19 research stations in Ontario, the ERS is owned by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and managed and operated by the University of Guelph through the enhanced partnership with the ministry. It is unique in that it combines beef, dairy and crop research in one facility -- 1,678 acres of land split into 883 acres for animal feed, 130 acres of pasture, 300 acres in research plots, 120 acres in research rotations and another 245 acres for facilities. The dairy research centre opened in 1969 and focuses on herd health, nutrition, reproduction and milk production. Researchers are studying mastitis, as well as looking for ways to improve the nutritional properties of milk through the cow's diet. There is also on-going work into managing ketosis and acidosis in transition cows. At any given time, about 165 milking Holsteins call the ERS home, in both a free-stall and tie-stall system. They are milked twice daily in a 16-unit parlour. There are also physiology and maternity wings, as well as three calf nurseries. The dairy farm is purposefully not set up as a model farm, but rather as a large laboratory designed for research. It's also a teaching facility for University of Guelph student laboratories and veterinary students on large animal rotations. The beef unit is home to approximately 450 head of cattle, including 130 cows, 70 replacement heifers and 130 feedlot steers or heifers. Space exists for research requiring feedlot and pasture land, but most research done at the beef centre is genetics and breeding for beef quality and feed efficiency. Researchers are also studying the effects of nutrition on beef quality and the impact of backgrounding (especially corn silage) in beef feeding programs. During the growing season, faculty, graduate students, and staff technicians work on breeding new varieties of crops such as corn, wheat and barley for greater yields and stress tolerance. Work is underway to develop new varieties of soybeans and canola with improved oil profiles for the processing industry. Other research includes improving rotation and tillage systems to reduce energy requirements and soil erosion and testing new herbicides to reduce their use while maintaining yields. As well, environmental matters are on the agenda, such as nitrogen from commercial fertilizer and manure leaching into groundwater, being watched by Land Resource Science faculty. The ERS is also on the forefront of new crop technologies. Plant breeders there are working with biotechnologists to evaluate transgenic crops such as alfalfa. Land management experiments are evaluating the use of global positioning systems. A great deal of this research will be prominent when the IPM opens in September. Being its next door neighbour, the ERS will provide equipment, wagons and land for parking and trailer storage. But its main stage will be in the tented city. The ERS will have displays outlining the highlights of agricultural research in the focus areas of the research agreement between OMAFRA and the University of Guelph: animals, plants, food, the environment and rural communities. A brochure highlighting advancements is being prepared now and will be available. Two daily seminars covering some of today's major agricultural issues will be presented by researchers themselves. There will also be two daily bus tours taking visitors to the ERS. "This will be a unique educational and promotional opportunity for the station to interact with the public," says Roger Shantz, manager of the research stations system. But it's not the only opportunity: throughout the spring, summer and fall, tours of students, farm and agricultural business groups are constantly coming through, observing the research which never stops. And here's one of the happiest coincidences about the ERS and the IPM: Former research stations manager George Robinson, who retired from the University of Guelph in 1996, is this year's IPM chairman. BF The writers are agricultural communication students at the University of Guelph. © copyright 2000 AgMedia Co-operative Inc.. top February 1, 2000 Needed: passionate proponents in the biotech battle By Owen Roberts Talk about coincidence. On the same early December day that Monsanto was holding a biotechnology information seminar in Mississauga for dealers and others within its broad business circle, a story from the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute finally surfaced in one of Canada's national newspapers. The story's main point: the world's grain farmers would have to increase production by 40 per cent to meet needs in 2020. The implications for biotechnology weren't lost on those who understand agriculture. Researchers and plant breeders using traditional cross breeding and hybrid development-a popular form of genetic manipulation that has been going on for ages (and hasn't drawn howls of protest, yet) -- have provided us with some amazing yield gains and advances in stress tolerance. The corn industry alone has enjoyed gains of up to 1.5 percent per year in the last half-century. That's a lot. But even at this breakneck pace, in 20 years conventional techniques would only get us to about a 30 percent increase. One way to close that gap in the projected food supply is through biotechnology. But that won't happen if anti-biotechnology pressure groups outpace the agri-food industry. And right now, the industry is falling behind. It's losing the battle of the sound byte, the 10-second electronic media splash that takes months and maybe years to counter. It's losing the battle of the star spokesman, crushed by anti-biotechnology heavyweight David Suzuki, who many think was just the first. "I'm waiting for the actor or singer next," says Ontario Agri-Food Technologies President Gord Surgeoner. Indeed, it's not much of a stretch to envision another Meryl Streep waiting in the wings, ready to enact the biotech equivalent of her Alar-in-apples fright campaign. Losing the biotech battle could significantly influence the agri-food industry's ability both to compete and to feed an ever-hungry world. Monsanto knows that, and what it means for business. And given its leadership role in the sector, it's in a position to influence the direction of that communication. But having decided it wants to advance biotech communications, the big question is how. There's no shortage of good advice. "Maybe the pro-biotechnology side needs not more facts, but more passion," says Peter Hannam, president of Guelph-based First Line Seeds, which is partially owned by Monsanto. Indeed, the sector certainly needs more visibility. And, however it goes forward, it needs to be convincing and make consumers believe it cares about them and their health, not just about making money. That requires a new approach, not the kind taken by Greenpeace or the Council of Canadians or David Suzuki or any of the naysayers. Rather, it requires education-painstakingly slow, personal, low-tech education. "We need opportunities for people to learn about biotechnology that go further than marketing communications," says biotechnology communications consultant Milly Ryan-Harshman. "If it's glossy and has an industry logo on it, it gets no attention. My favourite approaches are basic education opportunities." That's mostly a packaging matter. Lee Ann Murphy represents the Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC) on the Food Biotechnology Communications Network-one of North America's few pro-biotechnology information sources. She says consumers need credible, understandable and accurate information in a variety of ways, from a variety of sources. She advocates a communication toolbox that includes point-of-purchase information, 1-800 numbers, speakers' bureaus, school education programs and consumer awareness campaigns. She also urges the elimination of techno-speak. A 1996 CAC survey of literacy skills showed only one-fifth of Canadians have the ability to comprehend difficult topics, such as biotechnology. But whether it's in a brochure, an email or a telephone call, communication initiatives need to underline that there is a methodic, well-developed regulatory system in place to keep food safe and protect Canadians against the kinds of disasters prophesied by the anti-biotechnology movement. Safety seems to be at the nub of consumer concerns. A 1997 survey out of the University of Calgary revealed that less than 50 percent of respondents felt the regulatory system-the one that approves biotechnology products in Canada-doesn't protect them. Only eight percent said regulators would tell them the truth about genetically modified organisms (universities ranked highest in that category with 24 percent, even outdistancing medical professionals by four per cent). Farmers were in the middle; 17 percent of the public thought they'd tell the truth. Clearly, the problem is not all with the Monsantos. Everyone in the agri-food chain has ownership, not least those who'll be trying to grow 40 percent more grain by 2020. Owen Roberts heads research communications for the University of Guelph and is a past-president of the Canadian Farm Writers' Federation. © copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc.. top January 1, 2000 Food safety questions? Call 1-800-ANXIETY By Owen Roberts Phone-in shows are radio's answer to letters to the editor. Vox populi at its finest. But there's a difference: letter writers must know how to write. All callers need to know is how to rant. With a phone-in, you never know if you'll witness oral finesse or a freak show. But whatever the case, "the people" get to speak. And so, as we begin the new millennium, food safety -- or the lack of it -- has them reeling. Not long ago Canadians revered our food supply. Now, we're confused, anxious and paranoid. Everything from bread to berries is viewed with a jaded eye. Polls show the public trusts farmers, but it's sure wary of the food farmers produce. This came through loud and clear in late November when CBC Radio's Ontario Today lunchtime program (normally broadcast from Ottawa) ventured to Guelph for a rare out-of-town, two-day live production. It was heartening to see the Mother Corp. on the road, heading for the province's heartland. Over the past decade CBC has fallen from the agri-food industry's graces, cutting out virtually every farm show it carried. Top brass thought Canada's growing urbanization had turned listeners off traditional farm news. To some degree, they were right. But they, like so many others, misread the public's renewed interest in food, the ultimate agricultural story. If there was any doubt, the Guelph broadcast laid it to rest. During a special show devoted to food safety, Guelph food scientist Mansel Griffiths and food engineer Gauri Mittal fielded question after question about our diverse and complex food supply. Though none of the callers were frantic, none -- absolutely none - exuded confidence in the food supply, at any level. Concerns started with the food service sector. A caller from Dundalk recounted how a bagel server took her order, handled her money, made change, and then - without washing -- prepared her bagel. Not a ghastly tale, but distasteful. Another, from St. Catharines, wondered if her grocer's boneheaded meat attendant should have been reprimanded for casually and repeatedly tossing a rump roast from one ungloved hand to the other, like a football, while conversing about a particular cut of meat. The audience chuckled. In another era, those incidents might have quickly fallen from memory. But not now. Suddenly they're food stories -- bad food stories. Although they have nothing to do with farming per se, they make the whole industry look grimy. The concerns went on. A caller from Strathroy wondered about the wax that processors use to keep apples spiffy. In days gone by, people ate it without question. Now, it's an issue. Another caller from Toronto wondered if French bread sold partially exposed in paper bags was "safe," because it could, theoretically, be touched by other shoppers. There were war stories about food poisoning and questions on shellfish safety, food irradiation, pre-cut vegetables, antibiotics in meat, trans-fatty acids and hydrolyzed vegetable protein. The diversity of the concerns left host Dave Stephens scratching his head. He wondered out loud: are we getting sicker easier? Maybe, said Griffiths. Indeed, the population is aging, and its collective immune system is losing efficiency. But, he adds, there are other factors. Food is transported longer distances, and consumed by a greater number of people. One illness outbreak can affect many, many people. And with travel continually increasing, the opportunity to "bring home more than your suitcase" is growing, says Griffiths. Finally, a big reason we may know more about food safety now is that scientists such as Griffiths and Mittal are getting better at looking for food safety problems, finding them and creating solutions to prevent them, such as electroshock pasteurization. Not all food stories are bad. But never have there been so many food stories. Given the public's confusion and the CBC's mandate as a public broadcaster, experiences like the Guelph broadcast should compel the corporation to take another look at the agri-food industry. It's clear listeners are tuned-in. And responding. Owen Roberts heads research communications for the University of Guelph and is a past-president of the Canadian Farm Writers' Federation. © copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc.. top December 1999 No comic relief for agricultural communications By Owen Roberts It is unlikely much of a following will be built for farm news by relying on untutored general-assignment reporters, rather than journalists with some background in agriculture, to interpret the industry for non- farm audiences.      - Tom Pawlick Tom Pawlick, a long-time communications specialist with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, was a bit of a visionary when he wrote those words in 1996. It was part of his Carleton University doctoral thesis, for which he'd long been gathering facts and opinions. At the time, he didn't know the untutored would have such a stranglehold on the biotechnology beat. They do, and their interpretations are a mess. Slowing down (let alone reversing) the untutored trend is a daunting task. Sometimes, if you wait long enough, the commotion fades away and the untutored move on to the next cause du jour. But when Monsanto chief executive Robert Shapiro stands before a Greenpeace-organized conference, as he did last month and suggests his company's approach to new technologies has been condescending and arrogant, then vows to start listening to Greenpeace's protests, you know the next chapter is just unfolding. Shapiro's address coincides with a flurry of activity by new-technology advocates. They're meeting newspaper editorial boards across the country, writing letters to the editor and banding together to promote their perspective. Most of their activity is reactive, by necessity. True to Pawlick's predictions, there are few general-assignment writers who understand the advantages of biotechnology to farmers. The media are playing catch-up, and balance is way out of whack. That speaks loudly for a need for skilled agricultural communicators. In the long run, the best way to ensure balanced agricultural stories is, as Pawlick maintains, to supply the media with communications graduates who have a perspective on the industry. Students are excited about communicating about the agricultural industry; they're seeing "farm" stories back on the front pages of the dailies. The industry doesn't like the content, but is taking steps to change it though efforts like the Agricultural Adaptation Council's support for an integrated agricultural communications program at the University of Guelph. Understanding how to communicate inevitably prompts a look ahead at the medium, or "channel", most likely to convey agricultural messages. The Internet immediately comes to mind. Last year almost 60 per cent of large producers said they'd be using the Internet within three years. That prompted a lot of crystal-ball gazing about electronic communications becoming the medium of choice for farmers. Maybe it will, eventually. But there's still a big chunk of up-and-coming farmers whose primary allegiance is to print the media. They're the Generation Xers who are comfortable on the Internet, but see it more as an entertainment device than an information provider. They were raised when the medium was, like them, still in its infancy. And communicating with them is no trivial mater. In short order, they'll constitute a significant portion of the farm community, given that an estimated 120,000 (one-third) of Canadian farmers are retiring in the next decade. Who will take over those farms? For the most part, Generation X. One reason rural youngsters (and their parents) are pro-print is because Internet access has been such a bear. The provincial government, along with Bell Canada, the Ontario Rural Council and Regional Networks for Ontario, is trying to change that. In late October, the group announced southern Ontario rural communities were getting $11.5 million for extended high-speed data services, a necessity for meaningful business communications. The initiative will, by necessity, make single-line service available for many who now have four-party lines, probably the biggest impediment to electronic communications in rural Canada. This is laudable, but it's important to remember communications technology -- like biotechnology -- is just a tool. The advantage of biotechnology is lost on many Canadians because it hasn't been communicated properly. So let's apply that lesson to other emerging technologies. Let's make sure the development isn't seen in isolation and, as Monsanto's Shapiro suggests, the enthusiasm for the technology is matched by media efforts to describe it. Last month an alarm bell sounded when Ontario's Education Quality and Accountability Office noted that Grades 3-6 boys, in particular, have become uninterested in reading anything other than comics, but are "fully competent in other literacy tasks, such as surfing the Web." The Web, like comics, is graphic- intensive. As reading skills slip, so will writing. And if we think there are problems now communicating complex issues such as biotechnology, just wait until those Grades 3-6 boys become farm leaders. Owen Roberts heads research communications for the University of Guelph and is a past president of the Canadian Farm Writers' Federation. © copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc.. top November 1, 1999 Biotechnology: A New Trade Barrier Credible research the best answer to critics By Owen Roberts The outcome of the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle, Wash., this month may not influence how you farm technically, but it could sure influence what you grow. Especially if research and science take a backseat to politics in the debate over what's safe to export and eat, and what isn't. Trade officials from all countries are looking for reasons to shut the door on other countries' exports. The latest and perhaps most controversial is biotechnology, particularly genetically modified (GM) crops. They've mushroomed to the point where they now cover an estimated 40 million hectares globally. About 75 per cent of this acreage is grown in the United States; Canada has about 10 per cent of the total. The biotech boom is putting pressure on the WTO to define reasonable grounds for tariffs and trade restrictions. When the European Union, followed by Japan and Brazil, boldly moved to shut North American GM crops out this year, it raised a fundamental question about global trade restrictions: Can science over-ride politics? If a country shows what it considers ample safety testing for a product of biotechnology, is another country obliged to accept it? It should be, says Canada's Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief, if the science is sound. Canadian farmers are major exporters of genetically modified crops such as canola, soybeans, corn and potatoes. Field tests at locales such as the University of Guelph have been under way for more than a decade to give scientific proof these crops are sound. Vanclief, who's farmed most of his life, considers federally approved GM crops safe. That position was underlined last month in Quebec at a joint annual meeting of the Canadian Farm Writers' Federation and the Association canadienne des r‚dacteurs agricoles . There, Terry Norman of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's division for Western Hemisphere trade policy voiced the government's frustration over roadblocks. "There are concerns within each country about matters such as animal welfare," he said, "but these are not trade Issues and they shouldn't be a reason for imposing restrictions." Canada and other countries that believe science should be the final arbiter have logic as their ally. But there are many variables a country considers when deciding to accept or reject new technology. Research may be the only common denominator. "It's the responsibility of the scientific community to provide the credible research on which the WTO can make decisions," says Prof. Clarence Swanton, head of the Department of Plant Agriculture at the University of Guelph. "There are all kinds of internal factors that can influence trade decisions, but science is the one constant, the common basis from which decisions can proceed." Even then, decisions are tough. The biotechnology wrinkle in the WTO negotiations would be smoother if prior attempts to reach an international biosafety protocol had succeeded. It crashed when the United States and a group of African countries butted heads over food safety. The Africans wanted a clause in the protocol that would require a country exporting GM food to seek entry approval from the importing country. The Americans objected, saying safety was not an issue because the science was sound. Their initiative failed. Later, in Tokyo, when Japan announced it would require producers and importers to label GM soybeans, corn and potatoes as well as processed products, David Aaron, a frustrated U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce, told reporters "this suggests that there is a problem where none exists." The Africa-U.S. stand-off was crucial, and telling. African countries facing nutrition problems have been cited as the most likely to benefit from GM crops. Indeed, in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington in July, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, predicted biotechnological solutions would help to "create a world where no one needs to go hungry, where developing nations can become more self-sufficient." He said "genetically modified plants have the potential to resist killer weeds that are literally starving people in Africa and other parts of the developing world. Biotechnology can help us solve some of the most vexing environmental problems. It could reduce pesticide use, increase yields, improve nutritional content, and use less water." On our own turf Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians have launched a Campaign against genetically engineered food. They want the big food chains to label or dump bio-engineered food. That's no small feat, considering an estimated 60 per cent of the packaged food in grocery stores is genetically altered. Similar efforts are being staged around the world. In Sydney an Australian citizens' coalition has launched a Five-Year Freeze Campaign on Gene Technology. It's calling for a minimum five-year ban on GM food imports, on living organism patents, and on growing genetically engineered crops outside the laboratory. In Britain GM crop protests have intensified, arrests and civil disobedience marring the Smash Genetic Engineering campaign at six farm-scale trials of GM maize on government research farms. Even the Church of England has entered the debate. Church commissioners say they're wrestling with the ethical implications of allowing government scientists to plant genetically modified crops on Church land. (The Church of England owns more than 120,000 acres of farmland.) Will the Church listen to science? Will the WTO? Among so many disparate voices, science may be the only one that keeps the Seattle talks from becoming a Tower of Babylon. Owen Roberts heads research communications for the University of Guelph and is a past president of the Canadian Farm Writers' Federation. © copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..