Ag extension turns an uncertain corner

By Don Stoneman and Robert Irwin

This winter, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is undergoing the most dramatic restructuring of a turbulent decade. By February or March, 29 county offices will be closed, to be replaced be a smaller number of "resource centers," "co-locations," "rural business enterprise centers" and "northern sites."

Agricultural representatives and rural community advisors, long considered the backbone of the province's extension services, will be eliminated.

Agriculture and Agri-food Canada reports that, even before the money-saving restructuring, Ontario was spending less in support of agriculture, as a percentage of the province's farm gate gross domestic product, than almost any other province -- about 9.5 per cent in the 1998-99 year. (See accompanying chart.)

Some observers familiar with restructuring in other ministries believe the stage has been set for the introduction of user fees for any contact between farmers and government staff. But Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture Jim Wheeler insists that user fees are not in the works. "I would say we will not be introducing user fees for staff consultations," he says. "I can't see it in the future." Not that the idea hasn't been considered. In general, "cost recovery" has been unsuccessful in other jurisdictions and income has failed to meet expectations, Wheeler says.

The changes will be watched closely. Observers hope that OMAFRA brass won't make the same mistakes as other ministries where programs were slashed. They note the strong parallels between the announcements on agriculture last month and the drastic cuts by the Harris government to the Ministry of Natural Resources and to family support in the Ministry of Social Services. In both cases, regional offices were closed and services centralized so that it became more difficult for clients to access them. As soon as that happens, says one source, top brass has the justification to stop offering those services, clearing the way for further budget reductions.

Wheeler says the field offices will be gone by February or March. About 130 positions will be redundant, but many otherwise unnecessary workers will be filling 90 new specialist positions. Specialists will gather information on new technologies, package it for dissemination and help train other agri-professionals to service farmers. Wheeler allows that some hiring will come from outside the ministry. There will be a strong emphasis on rural water quality, he says, and OMAFRA lacks trained hydrogeologists.

Back in early November, a government leak sparked a protest by supporters of Alfred College in eastern Ontario. The college appears to have been the first affected institution to learn how hard the provincial government was planning to hit agriculture.

At the time, supporters of this top-notch ag-school and cultural symbol for Franco-Ontarians launched an all-out bid to halt rumoured budget cuts of $1.5 million from a total budget of $2.3 million. School officials warned that the college couldn't operate with just $800,000.

A month later the government announced it was hacking $3.5 million from the University of Guelph budget. There was no mention of Alfred. "It's business as usual," says College president Gilbert Cleroux. In fact, the College is adding a rural development program and a food-processing program starting this fall. The latter program is a joint venture with the agricultural college at St. Hyacinthe, Que.

Alfred is a campus of the University of Guelph, which has signed an agreement to keep it open until April 2001. Does Cleroux have any doubts about its survival? "We are happy to leave it with them (Guelph)," Cleroux maintains. However, "you can never relax," he adds.

Rob McLaughlin, dean of the Ontario Agriculture College at Guelph, affirms that "the university has no desire to close Alfred or any of our other colleges," noting that the University is still negotiating with the government. "A whole lot of stuff is way up in mid-air right now."

He says that "since OMAFRA has decided education is no longer one of their core businesses, Alfred supporters are considering some kind of alignment with the Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities."

© copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..

back

Robot system ready for commercial launch

By Norman Dunn

Whatever the non-specialist press may be telling us about robotics in field operations, we won't be seeing machinery without drivers for some considerable time, according to G黱ther Bittner. This German engineer reckons his Geo Tec Electronics firm will be the first in the world to launch safe and completely accurate satellite-controlled tractor and implement operating computers on commercial farms.

创But," he explained at this month's Agritechnica in Hanover, 创the drivers will probably remain in the cab as well. Our robotics are there to relieve the driver of continuous steering, and also to make sure that every bout in the field is accurate to within a couple of centimetres. The operator can then devote all field time to detailed control of seeding, spraying or whatever.``

But things work without the operator too: completely automatic soil testing with tractor-mounted probes working according to a field map is also a reality, for instance.

Geo Tec Electronic's Agro Nav system uses GPS satellite-based navigation plus the so-called IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) and radar. Software includes capacity for pre-determining the field work in the farm office and loading instructions into the tractor computer and sophisticated tractor-implement interaction instructions. The company has been working on the project since 1995. Independent German tests on the economics of in-field accuracy have indicated that savings of up to CAN $ 60/acre are realistic for the inch-exact field work produced.

The robot system has been developed in 创close co-operation`` with Deutz, the tractor manufacturers, and Hege Wintersteiger, manufacturer of trial plot sowing and harvesting implements.

"This system is ready for commercial launch," says Bittner, "and we expect Deutz tractors to be supplied with the hardware as optional equipment within the next twelve months.`` Price? 创We're still working on this. But we'll be marketing a system that will certainly be ab to pay for itself on an average arable farm within two years.``

创Look - no driver!`` Geo Tec's 碅gro Nav` launched at this month's Agritechnica machinery show in Hanover, can take over completely from the driver in all cultivation, sowing and plant protection operations, giving impressive improvements in over-all in-field accuracy, according to independent trials. Commercial launch for the GPS/radar system is slated within 12 months, say the developers. First tractors to be fitted with Agro Nav as an optional extra will be Deutz Agrotron models.

Fertilizer manufacturer Hydro Agri was another firm at Agritechnica using satellites and microprocessors in a new development. Its "N Sensor" system uses tractor-mounted receivers to measure the reflectance of growing crops with an on-board computer converting the information into correct N application rates and adjusting the spreader continuously. Most trials have been carried out with cereals so far, but Hydro Agri says other crops are being worked on now. With cereals, though, the company reckons that on a single field, a uniform N rate means only the crop on about 25% gets the right dosage on average. Just under 100 wheat trials Europe-wide last year indicated that profitability could be increased by some 10% /acre with the sensor system.

Computer precision was also the aim of a crop-care system demonstrated by Schmotzer, the Bavarian sowing and cultivation implement manufacturer. Fine-steering down the rows with the company's 6 - 18 row interrow cultivators can now be taken over by a light beam sensor, which identifies the exact positioning of the crop plants on a central row and sends the appropriate steering instructions via micro processor to the cultivator wheels.

Positioning is assessed through diagonal beams at four different heights allowing the presence of weeds to be compensated for. This way for faster work and no crop damage costs the equivalent of C $3,100 for the sensor and microprocessor plus approximately $8,400 for two new steering wheels at each end of the cultivator complete with electro-hydraulic linkage.

The new 创electronic eye`` for Schmotzer crop interrow cultivators/band sprayers. Light beams pinpoint exactly the crop plant position and the information is sent via microprocessor to the electro-hydraulic steering system.

© copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..

back

How benign is our climate?

by Henry Hengeveld

One of the first things we tend to talk about with friends or neighbours is the weather. Sometimes we just want to voice our pleasure at the warm sunshine of a spring day, or marvel at the picturesque beauty of a fresh snowfall on a quiet winter evening. More often, though, we want to grumble a bit about the cold in winter, the heat or drought in mid-summer, the wet weather in the harvest season - or simply the bad forecast the weather office released again yesterday. Yet, despite our healthy skepticism about weather forecasts (they are sometimes wrong!), most of us will religiously check out the forecast for the next few days, or regularly catch the updates on the weather channel.

This fascination with weather shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, there are few things more common to all of us than the weather. Furthermore, weather has an important impact on who we are as a nation, how we live, what we wear, what we do today or plan to do tomorrow, or where we go. It can present us with real danger, and can ruin our crops or destroy our property in a matter of minutes. In fact, some estimates suggest that Canadians on average spend in the order of $12 billion per year in coping with the effects of weather and climate. That's about $400 per person!

Yet, in many respects, the toll weather takes on our health and physical well-being is much less in Canada than in other countries. Not surprisingly, our worst problem is extreme cold, which directly kills some 100 or so Canadians on average each year. By comparison, only six or seven Canadians die annually of excessive heat, about six are killed by lightning, and only about two by storms or floods (not including the many traffic fatalities to which poor weather and road poor road conditions may contribute). In general, these numbers are quite insignificant when compared to the thousands that can die in a single storm or flood in a tropical country, or the hundreds that have died during heat waves south of the border. Perhaps we really don't have that much to complain about after all.

One reason for the relatively low impact weather has on our health is that we just don't get that many weather extremes that exceed our ability to cope. In Canada, we rarely get intense hurricanes, and major thunderstorms, hailstorms or tornadoes are rare compared to more tropical regions. Our summer heat waves seldom exceed 35(C and don't often last more than a few days before relief arrives. And we can deal with severe cold and blizzards by dressing warmly or staying indoors in heated buildings. Furthermore, progressive improvements in forecasting accuracy have helped us prepare for the extremes that do come our way, and so reduce the risk. Perhaps the inconvenience of a bit of cold is a small price to pay for our otherwise relatively benign climate.

But, in recent years, the insurance industry has begun to wonder just how benign our climate really is. Prior to the last decade, insured property losses due to made-in-Canada weather disasters rarely exceeded $100 million. Even the 1985 Barrie tornado only resulted in losses of $84 million. However, since the 1960s, insured losses due to extreme weather have been doubling every five to ten years, and individual weather disasters are reaching unprecedented cost levels. In September 1991, a single hailstorm (WHERE?) caused insured losses of $343 million. Another duo of hailstorms in Calgary and Winnipeg in July 1996 caused combined insured losses of $350 million. Then came the 1996 Saguenay flood ($165 million) and the Ontario/Quebec ice storm of January 1988 ($1.44 billion). Add to these the government compensation paid directly to disaster victims for uninsured losses and you are into major money.

These striking increases in losses can be partly attributed to our growing populations, our greater wealth and our aging structures and public systems. However, there are worrisome indications that some types of extreme weather are on the increase, and may become even more frequent in future decades. These concerns have led the insurance industry to set up an Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction to promote greater public awareness of the risks of natural disasters and to work with communities and experts to reduce these risks by better planning and by building more wisely. More talk about weather, but definitely worth listening to!
Henry Hengeveld is a science advisor on climate change for Environment Canada.

© copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..

back