Farmer undaunted by elevator's about-face

By Don Stoneman

His local elevator changed its mind about taking Albert Hovius' Roundup Ready corn this fall. But that won't dissuade the western Ontario cash-cropper from planting a herbicide-tolerant hybrid again next year.

"I'd like to go back to the Roundup Ready corn," says Hovius, who farms a modest 600 acres around Hensall in Huron County. An hour's drive north of London, the village is home to three major elevators and known as the largest inland grain terminal in eastern Canada. Hovius had arranged to sell his corn crop to W. G. Thompson and Sons Ltd. But in September, with the crop near to harvest, they sent him a letter telling him that his non-approved, genetically altered corn wasn't welcome at their unloading chutes.

Hovius doesn't blame the local Thompson elevator for their about-face. "They don't want Roundup Ready corn in their mill because they deal with Casco's in London. It's a great big screwup, that's what it is."

Wet miller Casco buys 30 per cent of the province's corn crop and ships products to Europe. Last spring it warned farmers that it wouldn't be accepting hybrids not approved by the European Union.

Hovius remains unfazed. He found a ready market for his corn at the nearby Bender feedlot, east of Hensall. The Bender family feeds 7,500 head of beef cattle at a time and also pigs. "Bender's will pay the same price as anyone else," Hovius says. But without Bender, he says, "it would be a different story." He speculates that now he would be looking for a mill that deals only in feed.

Roundup Ready corn impressed Hovius as the cheapest product to spray, at $20 an acre for weed control, and the easiest too. Growers don't have to worry about the air temperature when they spray. Hovius still remembers when the new Ultim formulation came on the market a few years ago. Crops were scorched when spraying was followed by extremely hot early summer temperatures.

Brucefield-based crop adviser Mervyn Erb concurs with Hovius' thinking. When prices are low, farmers will go with the easiest weed-control program. Erb has toured a lot of field plots this fall and thinks that Roundup Ready corn has bigger cobs because the plants are free of corn borer. "The Bt corn is really shining," he says. "It's standing up. It's clean.

It makes them money. When prices are low the farmer isn't of a mind to start segregation." "You pay a user agent fee but your weed control is easier and it is cheap."

The Roundup Ready corn Hovius grew is one of 17 Dekalb varieties that hadn't been cleared by the European Union when officials in Brussels imposed a moratorium on such approvals in the spring. Pioneer also marketed two non-EU approved varieties this year. Likewise, Garst sold one hybrid. Neither Thompson nor Cooks in Hensall was taking non-approved varieties this fall. Hensall Co-op, arguably the largest of the three elevators in the village, was taking corn from non-approved hybrids only at its Londesboro location, said General Manager Earl Wagner.

© copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..

back

Nutrient Management Plans for croppers too

By Pat Lynch

There has been a lot of excitement and promotion surrounding Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) in Ontario the last two to three years. Certainly Don Hilborn of OMAFRA can be praised for his passion in trying to make the NMP process work. It should be seen as an evolving process. There is no unanimity among townships or areas as to how NMPs should be done, nor is there unanimity as to who is qualified to do an NMP and review it.

I have been doing NMPs for farmers for 15 years. The basics include soil- testing, recording what fertilizer goes on, making concessions for manure when it will be applied in the future. This is followed by soil analysis and making corrections. It is not an exact science. Indeed, it is a bit of an art. Not all soils or farms react the way the "book" says they will. (Maybe they haven't read the book.)

Generally, NMPs have saved growers many dollars without sacrificing yield. In some cases we have gone five years without additional phosphate and with no reduction in yield. We are working with fields that have had high soil-test levels due to manure. We are now applying that manure to other fields that can respond to P & K. I guess I can ask: If you are not following an NMP, what are you doing? Certainly in these days of competitive farming you must be soil- sampling and must have an NMP.

I believe in the future NMPs will be a requirement. I can certainly see this as part of any ISO program. End-buyers will want to be able to tell their customers that they are being environmentally friendly all the way. Probably the first to want such a guarantee will be the bankers. And could lack of NMPs become another non-tariff trade barrier?

There are those who feel that NMPs are only for the pork producers. If the NMP is required to keep nutrients out of the water, how can you argue that nitrogen or phosphorous from manure is any different from the same nutrients from fertilizer. I imagine that the courts will decide that "P" is "P" and "N" is "N" regardless of the source. Interestingly the State of Maryland is requiring farmers to have NMPs in the next two to four years. What is especially interesting is that cash croppers must have an NMP before the livestock people.

Some of the basics will include a history of soil tests and fertilizer records. The samples will have to go through an accredited lab, using accredited procedures. At present not all accredited labs are using the soil-analysis systems accredited by Ontario when a sample is sent to them. I can imagine that the people pulling the sample will also have to be accredited. Why, you ask. Think about it. Suppose a manufacturing firm were posing an environmental risk to water. Would society allow that firm itself to pull the samples needed to see if there was a problem?

I have done enough soil sampling and reviewed enough samples to know there is a big difference in the way samples are pulled. Currently, if you have too high a "P" test for manure application, you can reduce that soil analysis by taking a deeper sample. Effective, but certainly contrary to the intent of the NMP. It is possible that farmers could be accredited for pulling their own samples. But there is a right way and a wrong way to sample.

There will be a cost for NMPs. They will have to be drawn up and reviewed. For livestock producers, even those not wishing a building permit, this will add a cost to their operation. Ultimately this cost will come off the price of land, or will have to be factored into the cost of buying or renting land.

I can still feel there are some who are not buying the argument that everyone will have an NMP. However, there was a time when farmers believed they would not need quotas to sell eggs or ship milk; or that they could sell their wheat or white beans wherever they wanted. And more recently there was a time when growers felt they could buy and spray pesticides without a permit. In the future society will have even more of a say in how we farm. In town you need a permit now to do just about everything. We cannot even do repairs without a building permit. I am not saying this is good or bad, but I am saying this is the way we are going. If it is properly done, growers with a good NMP will make more money than those without.
Patrick Lynch is Head Agronomist for Cargill in Ontario

© copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..

back

Crop Shorts

By Jennifer Chateauvert

> Soil Testing: In advertising they say "in good times, you can afford to advertise, but in hard times, you can't afford not to advertise". The same holds true for crop production. When commodity prices are down and land rents show no sign of coming down, you cannot afford to put a crop in without a current (last three years) soil test from an accredited lab. Otherwise, how do you know if $4/ac of zinc in the corn starter is overkill or not enough? And that "deal" on fall fertilizer from your local supplier certainly isn't a deal if you don't need those particular nutrients! Arrange to have soil tests done as the crop comes off.

> Manure Testing: You wouldn't go to your fertilizer supplier and buy a spreader of a mystery blend and spread it on your corn field. So why would you spread 4000 gal/ac of a mystery manure on your fields? The results from manure tests never look like the "typical" analysis in Pub. 296. Sometimes, the potassium is three times as high as the so-called typical analysis. Sometimes, the nitrogen is half as much as the typical analysis. Take a representative sample of the manure and have it analyzed at an accredited lab. Determine the quantity of manure you are applying to each acre, so you can properly credit the nutrients to the field.

> Seed Corn Orders: A continent-wide shortage of good non-GMO seed is expected. When your seed corn sales rep calls on you, take him or her up on that offers of early order discounts. Order the BEST non-bt, non-RR and non-LL hybrids. Look for hybrids with good natural corn borer resistance. Order a mixture of early and late flowering hybrids.

> Nutrient Management Plans: Even if you are not building a new barn, start an NMP. Even if you are a cash cropper, start an NMP. Why? Livestock producers in Maryland will need an NMP by 2006. Cash croppers in that state will need one by 2004. (Yes, that's right.) Municipalities in Ontario are heading in that direction. A basic NMP includes written records of soil tests, fertilizer applications and manure applications. Keep a notebook recording manure application rates, places and times. Transfer this information to a permanent binder in your office. Keep your soil test results and manure test results in this binder. Crop rotations and fertilizer applications should also be recorded here.

> Cost of Production: Finalize your COP for each bushel of grain produced in 1999, because there may be some parcels of land you cannot afford to rent next year. Keep track of yields by field or farm. Include expenses such as travel time to distant properties and drying charges. Even if you do your own trucking, be sure to account for expenses associated with this operation. And if you plan to store your crop for a few months, don't forget to put these expenses against this year's crop when determining the COP.
Jennifer Chateauvert, CCA-ON is a Consulting Agronomist with Cargill Ltd.

© copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..

back

A cooler summer ahead for a change

Year 2000 may not follow long-term trend

By Henry Hengeveld

Analysis of recent weather is always an interesting pastime, often tending to confirm what we already suspect. The picture of summer 1999 that emerges across Canada reveals another season of contrasts: near normal temperatures in the west, wet in most of the north, dry and hot in the southeast. In Atlantic Canada the summer was the warmest on record. Temperatures were above normal throughout Ontario, Quebec and the Yukon, but cooler than normal on the southern Prairies. Atlantic Canada and the southern Yukon also experienced one of the driest summers of the past 50 years.

Averaged from coast to coast, the season was 0.6øC warmer than normal with rainfall above normal. This was consistent with a long-term trend towards a warmer and wetter country. Temperatures have increased by 0.7øC over the past half-century, and they have been above normal for the last nine seasons. As for rain, only two of the last 20 summers have been drier than normal. The other 18 have all seen near or above normal rainfall amounts.

No one will be surprised to hear that temperatures in the Great Lakes/ St. Lawrence region averaged well above normal from June through August, exceeding the long-term average by 1.2øC. While well below the record year of 1955 (when temperatures were almost a degree warmer), the summer of '99 was the sixth warmest in 52 years, and the seventh consecutive summer with temperatures at or above historic averages. Precipitation levels across the region registered at or below normal for the tenth consecutive season. The Windsor district was especially dry. Hence, the summer weather did little to replenish the low water tables and declining lake levels in the region.

Perhaps even more interesting than talking about past weather is speculating about the weather the future will bring. For the past few years the Canadian Meteorological Centre in Montreal (which issues the daily and weekly national weather forecasts) has been preparing long-range forecasts of seasonal trends for 12-month periods. These statistical forecasts come with region-by-region estimates of the skill of the technique used, and hence a measure of the confidence in the forecast. In early September the Montreal centre bravely released its estimates for average conditions for the entire fall and the first three seasons of the year 2000.

For all of eastern Canada, including Ontario, a warm fall was forecast with a relatively high degree of confidence. Precipitation was expected to remain below normal to near normal across most of the east. However, although this forecast remains broadly similar to that issued in June for the same season, confidence levels for the precipitation prognostication are relatively low for Ontario. The coming winter and spring are expected to see temperatures near or above normal in most of Ontario. Precipitation is expected to be above normal in both seasons for northern Ontario, but below average to near normal in the lower Great Lakes region and eastern Ontario.

That brings us back to summer - summer 2000, that is. For what it's worth, the prediction for temperatures in most of Canada in June, July and August of next year is the reverse of that experienced this past summer: cool in the east, including Ontario, and warm on the Prairies. Likewise, in contrast to this year, rainfall is projected to be above normal in the lower Lakes region and below normal in the upper Lakes.

Let it be said, however, that long-range weather forecasting using statistical techniques like those employed in Montreal is a rather inexact science. Within the three-month averages shown in the seasonal projections there are possibilities of large swings back and forth in both temperature and moisture conditions. Hence, the forecasts for next spring and summer are as yet hardly reliable tools in the planning of strategies for next year's planting and harvesting. As better computer modelling techniques become available, the forecasting performance may improve. In the meantime, it at least provides conversation material for your next social event.
Henry Hngeveld is science advisor on climate change for Environment Canada

© copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..

back

ID: