April 2001
OmegaSmart cheese comes to Ontario
Using enhanced milk with health-promoting long-chain fatty acids, it could prove a niche product for smaller dairiesby DON STONEMAN
Ontario-produced omega-enhanced cheese may one day join Omega-3 eggs in the dairy section of your grocery store.In late February, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) board granted PurNutra Inc. of Victoria County permission to market its enhanced cheese in Ontario under the brand name OmegaSmart (tm).
Peter Peeters, PurNutra's president, anticipates being able to put his cows on the special feeding program necessary to produce fatty acid-enhanced milk for shipment (within quota) to a small cheese plant in his area. OmegaSmart milk is said to contain high levels of Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA), one of several long-chain fatty acids whose consumption is associated with health benefits. Food containing high levels of long-chain fatty acids has been cited as helping prevent heart attacks and strokes. Their consumption is supposed to make the interior of blood vessels smoother. For the same reason, omega fat foods combat circulatory problems in people with diabetes and anti-inflammatory factors help avoid arthritis pain.
The province's largest egg producer, Burnbrae Farms of Lyn in eastern Ontario, has been marketing Omega-3 eggs in grocery stores for several years. PurNutra began making OmegaSmart cheese, strictly for export, last October. The enhanced milk must be produced a short truck drive from where it is processed at Forfar Dairy in Elgin, eastern Ontario. Peeters farms too far away to take part in the program. Since the product is destined for export, farmers shipping the enhanced milk to Forfar don't require any quota holdings. They are however licensed and inspected by Dairy Farmers of Ontario.
The origin of the feeding supplement, which is credited with enhancing the milk, isn't clear. Peeters says PurNutra was formed after a group of producers got together in November, 1999, with University of Guelph animal nutritionist Bruce Holub, known for his expertise in fatty acids.
But Jim Stewart, president of the Agri-Food Quality Cluster, based at 1 Stone Road, Guelph, and acting general manager for PurNutra, downplays the role of the professor and the university in developing the feeding program. "Quite frankly," Stewart says of the University of Guelph's technology, "it didn't work." So PurNutra developed its own technology in the nine months before commercial milk production began last October. Pressed further, Stewart says OmegaSmart technology "really comes out of the Agri-Food Quality Cluster here in Guelph."
The University of Guelph's Holub refused to comment on the relationship between the technology developed at the university and the process PurNutra uses. He referred Better Farming to top people in the university's research department, but both were out of the country at press time.
Stewart is circumspect about what is in the feed supplement and where it is manufactured. He will say that the feed ingredients are "an all-natural feed supplement with no drugs or hormones." The "patented" supplement is manufactured under contract by Land O'Lakes Company of Illinois, says Stewart, "but not at the plant in Guelph."
Stewart says there are stringent quality controls and that the feed is available through co-ops across Ontario. The production of omega-enhanced milk depends not only on what the cows eat but also on the feeding regime. "The technology involves a feed supplement and a feeding process...how the cows eat and the pattern they are eating."
He says cows producing the milk can be either Holsteins or coloured breeds, and the supplement itself is available either in pellets for topdressing or as an addition to a total mixed ration. The milk is tested weekly and must contain at least 0.2 per cent DHA in the fat. Producers get a bonus depending on the DHA content. Some of the export contract farmers "are producing three and four times that," Stewart says.
Farmers producing DHA-enhanced milk for the domestic market will get the standard DFO price plus a bonus, Stewart says. Producers shipping OmegaSmart milk must be shareholders in the company. Shareholders, however, don't have to be farmers.
Once the cheese is made, it is trucked to the Bright Cheese House in Woodstock for packaging. Forfar has only a manual packaging system, Peeters explains, and can't handle 20,000 pounds of cheese at a time. Stewart says there is no shortage of farmers wishing to sign up as suppliers for the enhanced milk. He says Forfar Dairy is now using all its capacity for Omega cheese and will shortly go to two shifts.
Howard French, who has been in charge of operations at Forfar for more than 10 years and is continuing as interim general manager at the dairy after its mid-February transfer to new owners, is a little more conservative in his enthusiasm for the growth in OmegaSmart production. He says Forfar makes OmegaSmart cheese every other day, alternating with its regular cheese production. "Putting on a second shift" at Forfar means increasing production to seven days a week from five days, something that happens anyway to meet the summertime tourist demand for curd cheese, French says.
Stewart says PurNutra production will be concentrated in "rural dairies" and niche products that command a premium price will give small dairies a leg up against dairy giants such as Parmalat.
He hopes that Bright Cheese House at Woodstock will also begin producing OmegaSmart cheese. And Peeters is looking wistfully towards a local dairy at Bobcaygeon, a 20-minute drive from his farm, as a possible OmegaSmart maker that he can supply. BF
© copyright 2001 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..
back
Don't discount that rare phenomenon - the winter thunderstorm
It's unusual and it's eerie, but it can still do substantial damageby HENRY HENGEVELD
Several months ago, I was awakened in the middle of the night by a bright flash of light that appeared to illuminate the entire sky from horizon to horizon. Long after the light had faded, a persistent growl of thunder rumbled through the stillness of the night. Over the next ten minutes, this process was repeated several times, until the darkness and silence of the night returned.Like anyone in Ontario, I have seen lightning and heard thunder many times over the years, sometimes much too close for comfort. But this was different. This, for goodness sake, was in the middle of a snowstorm in December! Furthermore, the lightning was like nothing I had seen before, causing the whole clouded, snowy sky to glow as if someone had turned on the sun for a few seconds. The thunder, muffled by the falling snow, seemed to be endless. It was simply eerie.
Winter thunderstorms are, in fact, quite rare in Ontario. Over a 35-year period, for example, hourly weather records for the Pearson International Airport indicate only eight such events under conditions where surface air temperatures were reported at or below 0C. Typically, these cases were also accompanied by heavy precipitation in the form of wet snow, freezing rain or hail in the local region.
The few winter thunderstorms that do hit Ontario usually originate in the U.S. southwest as moist, warm storm systems that develop and deepen rapidly as they move northeastward over the continent. Observations indicate that, once thunder is heard, the system consists of a very deep, moist cloud layer with temperatures near zero degrees throughout the region where the thunder occurred.
The lowest layer near the ground is typically slightly below freezing, with a warmer moist layer above. As a result, the local precipitation is in transition between liquid and frozen phases. The consequent physical interactions between snow, rain, and ice pellets, together with strong winds that shift sharply in direction and speed within the cloud, result in the separation of electrical charges within the cloud. This process gradually builds up voltage between the base of the cloud and the ground, much like a giant capacitor.
The physical micro-scale cloud interactions between water droplets and snow and ice particles that cause the electrification of winter thunderstorms are, in many respects, similar to that of their summer cousins. However, the results appear to be quite different. This is primarily because, in a summer thunderstorm, the transition zone between snow and rain (which appears to be a key aspect of the electrification process) is normally in its middle to upper reaches. As the electrical charges separate, rain and winds normally carry negative charges to the bottom of the cloud and positive charges towards the upper regions.
Most lightning discharges from these clouds, therefore, produce a large current of negative charge from the bottom of the cloud to ground or to some other oppositely charged part of the cloud. Only about four per cent of the cloud-to-ground discharges in summer storms appear to result in a transfer of positive charge to ground. In contrast, the charge separation processes in winter thunderstorms occur in the lower regions of the cloud, producing a positive charge at its bottom. Hence, not only do a larger proportion of the discharges from winter thunderstorms occur as cloud-to-ground events, but more than half of these are observed to cause a net transfer of positive charge to ground.
In further contrast to most summer storms, the winter thunderstorm often results in only a few discharges. Sometimes only a single, isolated event occurs. In such cases, forecasters have often been skeptical about the accuracy of the observer's report, both because winter thunderstorms are rare and because of lack of corroborating evidence of similar events from other reporting stations in the region.
Similarly, insurance companies confronted with isolated claims for damage due to a lightning strike in mid winter may be more likely to challenge their legitimacy than for multiple claims related to a conventional summer electrical storm.
Fortunately, automated lightning detection systems and other instruments are now available to provide the complementary evidence needed to confirm such reports. Several years ago, for example, an isolated cloud-to-ground lightning flash struck a house in Connecticut, seriously injuring its occupant and causing fire to completely destroy the house. No other lightning strike was reported within hundreds of miles. However, local instruments employed as part of the U.S. National Lightning Detection Network not only recorded the event, but noted that the peak current during the discharge was in the order of 76,000 amperes, significantly more intense than most electrical discharges from summer storms. This data became of considerable importance in settling the insurance claim.
When all is said and done, that eerie winter thunderstorm, rare as it may be, can be as harmful as the loud summer boomer that makes our hair stand on end. The low fatality rate associated with these events is more due to their infrequency than their lack of lethal potential.BF
Henry Hengeveld is a science adviser on climate change for Environment Canada.
© copyright 2001AgMedia Co-operative Inc..
back
GM products and the flawed bureaucratic dream
by Barry Wilson
It is the soft underbelly of one of the federal government's latest agricultural fixations. The federal government, for all of its infatuation with science and high tech, has no idea about how to corral, control and guarantee the safety of genetically manipulated foods.These herald the next, great green revolution, the industry says, and will be the savior of farmers and the hungry, teeming crowds of hungry world citizens. The federal government has bought in, while most farmers see it as just another tool and resent those environmental activists and consumers who see the result as "frankenfood."
Ottawa loves high tech, biotechnology and the promise of science. It has infected the agriculture department, which is searching for a way to catch the wave of the government's priority. Hey, look at us. We're sunrise and progressive, not sunset and a subsidy pit. For close to a year, agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief and his senior bureaucrats have made the "emerging life sciences revolution" the focus of their dreams about how to move agriculture "beyond crisis management," as the January Throne Speech enigmatically put it.
It is a bureaucrat's image of once-whining and poor subsidy-seeking grain farmers buying a new SUV in cash after they sell the half acre of new-generation crop created to produce stronger-than-steel industrial products or a life-saving medicinal ingredient that the world is dying to buy. Ahhhh, a 1960s dream. Better living through chemistry.
Flash back to reality. In February, a panel of eminent scientists from across the country reported to the federal government that its system of assessing, regulating and certifying as safe the various food products of biotechnology is flawed. Government regulators are too close to the industries they regulate, too intent on making sure the Canadian biotech industry is competitive and can earn profits from its research investments, and too enthusiastic about the potential of the industry, said the panel of experts requested by Ottawa and organized by the Royal Society of Canada.
They criticized the agriculture department's confused role of supporting genetic modification through research funding, regulating the resulting products through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and defending and promoting the safety and potential of industry output. The eminent scientists found this a prescription for real or perceived conflict of interest.
Typically, the government defended itself by saying the scientists had got it wrong, the government has no pro-industry bias and genetically modified foods are safe or they would not be approved.
But the message is falling flat. Consumers want to know if they are consuming GM products even as the government frets over rules for voluntary labeling. Foreign markets shut out GM canola while the Canadian government rages that it is all hidden trade restrictions. And the pipeline is filled with new potential GM products that the government and industry insist should be approved on science criteria, while scientists question the government's objectivity as investor and regulator and some consumers wonder what the big shots are trying to hide.
The life sciences revolution may be the saviour for farmers, as Agriculture Canada would have us believe. But it must first convince domestic and foreign markets that the products of that revolution have been assessed by more than members of a government fan club. BF
© copyright 2001AgMedia Co-operative Inc..
back
Bringing facts to bear on the micronutrients debate
New CFIA registration rules will go a long way towards better understanding of the value of micronutrients being marketedby Pat Lynch
Few topics in crop production are discussed with so few facts as is the case with micronutrients. But those days may soon be over. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is gearing up to require scientific data to support claims currently appearing on containers, literature and verbal communications pertaining to micronutrients. If data does not support a registrant's claim then removal of such claim, in any form, will be required to maintain registration.One of the registration challenges will be concerning claims that "chelated" micronutrients are five to 10 times more effective than oxy-sulphates or sulphates. This claim evolves from the fact that, generally, "chelated" micronutrients are priced significantly higher (five to10 times) per unit of nutrient than oxy-sulphates or sulphates.
The word "chelated" describes products that use a wide range of methods for chelation, from EDTA to citric acid and even ligin-sulfonates. The needed actions by the CFIA will go a long way towards better understanding the value of various micronutrients being marketed.
Another area of change focuses on impurities in micronutrients. In Ontario, the main micros sold are zinc and manganese. Their source can range from virgin mined ore to industrial solid waste from manufacturing areas, such as the steel industry. These plants were forced to clean up their emissions and did so by removing the heavy metals from the air. This material could either be sent to a landfill or sold to a processor, who removed some of the materials and sold the rest.
In many parts of the world, you can still buy micronutrients with high levels of other heavy metals, such as cadmium and lead, though in Canada there are strict enforceable levels of other metals allowed in micro nutrient fertilizers.
Many micronutrient raw materials contain higher levels of heavy metals and are in forms that are ineffective as plant fertilizer. This could explain why sometimes a micronutrient, when added to a fertilizer blend, does not give the expected response. When added to starter fertilizer, certain heavy metals can reduce yield.
Another issue with micronutrients is the form in which they are manufactured. In Ontario, zinc is generally sold in the oxy-sulfate, sulphate or oxide form. The oxide form is not water-soluble and therefore not readily available to the plant. A highly water soluble oxy-sulfate (35-80 per cent) and the sulphate form are readily available.
However, if the micronutrient is too readily available, too water-soluble, it could become tied up with soil matter and not get into the plant. Or the plant could "luxury consume," the material, which is simply taking more than it needs.
While increased water solubility is good, higher water solubility is not necessarily better. According to Ray Dowbenko, a soils and fertility researcher with Agrium Inc., zinc micronutrients should be in the 40-50 per cent water-soluble range.
The next area of concern is the SGN (Size Guide Number). The SGN is the average dimension of the fertilizer particles measured in mm X 100. A 250 SGN fertilizer means that half of the fertilizer sample is retained on a testing sieve of 2.5-mm. opening. The UI (Uniformity Index) is a measure of the physical uniformity. The higher the UI, generally the less separation there is, as the particles are more evenly matched. The target UI of most N, P and K producers is 50 per cent.
When micronutrients are blended with other fertilizers, you need a material that has an SGN number and UI very similar to the other products with which they are mixed. For Ontario, you should probably be using micronutrients with an SGN of 240-280. This will blend best with most starter fertilizers and avoid uneven application of much-needed nutrients.
The SGN and UI are a function of production. During the fertilizer production process, the product must be screened to very tight tolerances. The screens separate the material as to its uniformity. The faster you move fertilizer (high tonnage production rates) across the screens, the lower its uniformity index due to blanking of screens. A lower than desired UI is also achieved when a manufacturer chooses a larger screen opening than is proper, so as to increase production rates.
To increase from a uniformity index of 35 to 50 per cent probably means reducing the production rate by 50 per cent. Products with a lower UI will be cheaper but probably not as effective, due to blend separation. The picture below compares a zinc micronutrient (Dark) blended with a light material (Urea) for purposes of illustration. The blend on the left has a 250 SGN and a 50 per cent UI. The product on the right is a 230 SGN and a 40 per cent UI. The product on the right is cheaper to make. Both have the same analysis. The product on the right will settle out more and potentially reduce yield from misapplication.
The final area of concern is the number of particles in soil contact. Typically with a more concentrated micro (e.g. 50-60 per cent guaranteed analysis) there are fewer micro nutrient particles in the blend. If using a low rate of total blend, such as 20-30 lbs. per acre, this may be acceptable. However, since starter fertilizers are more apt to be applied at 150 lbs. per acre, then a 20-30 per cent guaranteed analysis product is more appropriate.
The micro nutrient business is evolving quickly. Not every field needs micro nutrients. But if you do need them, the product that you choose is critical. BF
Pat Lynch CCA (ON), is head agronomist for Cargill in Ontario
© copyright 2001AgMedia Co-operative Inc..
back