OFA needs member feedback on rules for drainage funding

By DON STONEMAN

The Harris government is reviewing yet another long-term financial commitment to the province's farmers -- the funding and overseeing of farm tile drainage. Three separate acts dealing with agricultural tile drains are coming under scrutiny this winter:

* The Tile Drainage Act, a loan program to help finance farm drains;
* The Agricultural Tile Drainage Installation Act, which licenses contractors, machines and operators;
* The Drainage Act, Sections 85 to 90, which provide grants to farmers and municipalities.

The Tile Drainage Act makes fixed rate loans available to farmers to finance drainage work, through their local municipality. Interest rates are set at eight per cent, payable over a 10-year term. But Peter Jeffery, senior farm policy researcher, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, says that the $20,000 maximum loan limit per year might be increased and the eight per cent interest rate might be allowed to fluctuate.

Sid Vander Veen, drainage coordinator, Resources Management Branch, OMAFRA, says in recent years barely 20 per cent of landowners took advantage of the loans when they installed tile drains. Alternatively, farmers either paid directly for the drains or sought alternative funding.

The payments are collected by the municipality through the authority of a bylaw and the cost of the drain loan added to the municipal tax bill. In 1998, loans totaled about $8.75 million, Vander Veen says, down considerably from a peak of about $30 million back in 1982. Most drainage loan activity occurs in southwestern Ontario, Vander Veen says, though Eastern Ontario also gets its share. There is little in northern Ontario.

Under the Agricultural Tile Drainage Installation Act, the ministry licenses drainage contractors and makers of drainage equipment, a role it has assumed since about 1973. Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America to do so, Vander Veen says. In the late 1960s there were many innovations with plastic tile and plow machines. The ability to set up a business to install drains became a lot cheaper. "A lot of people were putting up a sign saying 'I am a drainage contractor.'" There were concerns about the competency of the new contractors and the Ontario Farm Drainage Association lacked the teeth to self-regulate. Currently the province requires contractors to take two courses to get a license. There is also an apprenticeship program.

Under the Drainage Act, three types of grants are available to develop and maintain the farm drainage system. Southern Ontario farmers can get a grant to cover one third of the cost of an engineer's report to construct a new drain, or to convert an open ditch to a 12-inch tile. In northern Ontario, the grant will cover two thirds of the cost. Financial help is also available to maintain or repair existing drains.

Furthermore, the province also covers half of a municipality's cost of maintaining a drainage superintendent, at a cost of between $2 million and $2.5 million annually province-wide. The superintendent maintains and repairs drains, and also deals with beaver dams.

Vander Veen says the amount of construction and improvement varies from year to year. When commodity prices are up, there is more work. Annual spending varies form $2.5 million per year to $7 million, and averages about $4.5 million.

It's not a lot of money considering the infrastructure it supports, Vander Veen says. Landowners pay for the benefit of a municipal drain that accrues to their property. (ED: Is "accrues to" the right word?) Vander Veen thinks the Drainage Act was ahead of its time. "It was user pay long before user pay was cool," he says.

Ron Bonnett, Ontario Federation of Agriculture vice-president, says the OFA will be developing a position on the tile drains during January. "I'd like the see the loan rate brought down," says Bonnett, who farms east of Thunder Bay. Currently, the eight per cent rate is higher than banks charge on loans. However, he notes that some banks aren't interested in loaning farmers money to put in tile drains because it is an asset that is underground. "Our initial reaction is for the government to move slowly on this," Bonnett says. "The grants were put in place over a long time to fill a need."

The "sleeper" in this provincial review is the issue of enforcement and inspection, Bonnett says. Ontario certifies operators and licenses machines to make sure that they can do the job right and is the only North American jurisdiction to do so. The intent now seems to be to move towards industry self-regulation, but Bonnett isn't sure that is the direction to follow. "We have a system that works. We don't want to jeopardize it."

Bonnett says it's important that farmers take a hard look at the current farm drainage program now. "We need feedback from our members, right away quick," Bonnett says, as to whether they want to keep the provincial acts relating to drainage as they are.

© copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..

back

Beef Science and Sense

Strive for prudence in using antibiotics

By TOM HAMILTON

Why should producers strive to reduce antibiotic usage in beef production? There are several excellent reasons, some based on ethical grounds, others arising from the cold logic of economics. Reducing the need for antibiotics means we have improved animal welfare, reduced risk to humans and improved cost efficiency in production. This is one area where farmers can combine their inherent stewardship of animals and responsibility towards society with the need for a positive financial bottom line.

A previous article in this series (see Better Farming, January 2000) detailed the most important reason for reducing use of human-relevant antimicrobials in livestock - to minimize the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria which may cause disease in humans. Although the use of antibiotics in human medicine is likely the major source of resistance in bacteria causing disease in people, there is sufficient evidence to identify animal agriculture as a significant contributor.

Moreover, an illness caused by resistant bacteria is more difficult to treat, since the bacteria are not susceptible to one or more antibiotics. Strains which have developed multiple resistance (to many classes of antibiotics) become very hard to control, resulting in severer symptoms, increased hospital stays and treatment costs.

Antibiotics are costly and require labour and record keeping. Their use normally signifies a serious health problem in the animal. Sick cattle are less productive during an illness and often exhibit negative effects long after the initial symptoms have disappeared. The result: poor reproduction, reduced feed efficiency and growth rates, as well as "hidden" costs due to lower grades and carcass trim losses from injection site lesions. And the advice you will need from vets doesn't come cheap. Add the deaths due to disease and the toll for serious health problems rises.

A rational strategy for reducing antibiotic usage requires a close look at why we are using them. Antibiotic use can be broken down into four main categories, ranked below from most prudent to least prudent. We use them to:

1. treat sick animals (therapy);
2. control outbreaks (metaphylaxis);
3. prevent infections (prophylaxis);
4. promote growth/improve feed conversion.

A few individual animals will contract some diseases, despite our best efforts at prevention. They will need therapy, which may involve antimicrobials. The therapeutic use in these cases is justified and usually cost effective. But as the number of animals requiring treatment increases, we move to another level -- from treating individuals to treating groups, pens or herds. This is known in vet circles as metaphylactic use and may mean lots of needling or mass medicating via feed or water. Here we are in a mode where all animals in the group at risk are receiving antibiotics whether they have disease symptoms or not. An example of this could be mass treatment of calves during a scours outbreak on a cow-calf farm.

The next escalation in usage is the blanket administration of antibiotics prior to the development of symptoms (prophylactic use) to head off an anticipated outbreak during a known high-risk period. This situation may occur when a feedlot brings in a number of groups of freshly weaned calves which have been on a week-long journey through a couple of assembly or sales yards. Based on past "shipping fever" wrecks, an antibiotic in the starter ration might seem like a good idea.

The use of human-relevant antimicrobials for growth promotion (and feed efficiency) in beef production is minimal. Most of the compounds used (like monensin) are active in the rumen and are not related to antibiotics used in human medicine.

Mass medication for treatment or disease prevention may signal a breakdown in animal management. Certainly, once animals are ill, we have an obligation to treat them to the best of our ability. But when the dust settles, the factors leading up to the crisis need to be identified so it can be prevented from re-occurring. Use of human-relevant antibiotics as a means of preventing disease in animals is not prudent. Risk of development of resistance increases as the number of animals treated and duration of treatment lengthens. And this has implications not only for human health, but also in maintaining an effective drug arsenal for use in treating sick animals.

The challenge is to use scientific knowledge to develop management strategies which will minimize the occurrence of disease, reduce costs and allow us to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics for individual therapy.

Tom Hamilton is the Beef Production Systems Program Lead for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. He also coordinates beef research at the New Liskeard Agricultural Research Station of the University of Guelph.

© copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..

back

How accurate is that "wind chill" factor?

By HENRY HENGEVELD

With the onset of the cold temperatures and storms of winter, we often hear talk of the "wind chill" factor on our daily weather forecasts. Today's forecast, for example, predicted a high of 3C, but a wind chill of -13C. However, although the term has been in use for many years, public surveys indicate that many people do not really understand what it means. What's more, in recent years various atmospheric scientists have raised concerns about the method used to calculate wind, and whether the term is even appropriate.

The concept of wind chill as a means of describing human comfort levels and the risks of frostbite from cold and wind is actually relatively simple. Our bodies, when exposed to cold air under calm wind conditions, heat up the thin layer of air immediately around it. As long as this layer of air remains in place, it acts as an insulating barrier between our skin and the colder air further away, much like the air between the two panes of glass in thermopane windows. This thin air layer reduces heat loss from our bodies.

In the presence of wind, however, the air layer is blown away and our skin must warm the new, colder air that replaces it. Furthermore, the wind causes moisture to evaporate from our skin more rapidly. Since evaporation uses heat provided by our skin, this makes our skin temperature cool even more. The faster the wind, the more significant this effect and the colder we feel. Thus, if we step from a sheltered spot into the wind, we immediately feel colder, even though the actual air temperature hasn't changed at all.

The technique for calculating wind chill factors was originally developed more than 50 years ago by scientists studying the combined effects of wind and temperature on frostbite risks for humans working in Antarctica. These and related experiments have been used to develop equations and tables that relate heat loss of warm objects to combinations of temperature and wind. Another way of describing this heat loss is to calculate the equivalent temperature required to cause the same heat loss in the absence of wind.

However, one of the concerns expressed by scientists is that this technique is based on measurement of changes in heat loss from a can of water exposed to various temperatures and wind speeds. By comparison, human exposure to wind and cold air is much more complex. In fact, the wind chill factor applies only to humans and animals, since non-living objects eventually will reach the same temperature as the air around them (at which point they then no longer give off heat to the air). For example, a car radiator may cool more rapidly when exposed to wind, but will never drop below the actual air temperature regardless of how low the wind chill may be.

There are other reasons why experts think the wind chill concept may be misleading as an indicator of the risks of frostbite or hypothermia. Such hazards also depend on the presence or absence of sunshine, the type of clothing we wear, whether or not we are sheltered from the full force of the wind, and the kind of activity we are involved in. Riding a bicycle into the wind, for example, will increase the speed of air moving past exposed skin, causing heat loss significantly greater than that indicated by the wind chill table, while riding with the wind behind us would have the opposite effect. Wind chill charts do not account for such factors.

Experts are now debating how to present better the combined hazards of cold temperatures and wind in public forecasts by both addressing these scientific concerns and improving communications methods. Results could soon make possible a more accurate and meaningful index. In the meantime, high wind chill values should continue to be a warning to ensure the homeless are sheltered, and that children, the elderly and the ill are protected. For the rest of us, it should not deter us from outdoor activity (unless temperatures get to be extreme), but it should be a reminder to dress properly.

Henry Hengeveld is a science adviser on climate change for Environment Canada.

Wind Chill Temperature Table

					Actual Air Temperature °C
Wind Speed	0	-5     -10     -15     -20     -25     -30
(km/h)			

0			  0	 -5	 -10	 -15	 -20	 -25	 -30
10			 -2	 -7	 -12	 -17	 -22	 -27	 -32
20			 -7	-13	-19	-25	-31	-37	-43
30			-11	-17	-24	-31	-37	-44	-50
40			-13	-20	-27	-34	-41	-48	-55
50			-15	-22	-29	-36	-44	-51	-58
60			-16	-23	-31	-38	-45	-53	-60

Note that wind chill temperature values apply only to skin exposed to the full force of the
wind, in the absence of sunshine.

© copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..

back

Beware of cutting torch damage causes damage to shafts

By Keith Berglind

"Skim-cutting" with a cutting torch is often used by farmers and mechanics to blow-away the inner race of a bearing that is seized to a shaft, or for a bearing that is too far down a shaft to be reached with the pullers at hand.

Because the closest hydraulic press is usually "too far away", we often use these short cuts - cutting torches and chisels. The trick is not to do more damage than what you're trying to fix. Unfortunetly, we often do expensive damage, when our shop-tricks go bad.

I like using the cutting torch to skim-cut tight fitting parts. I have learned, from sad experiences, not to damage the shaft under the bearing being cut. A little too much heat usually doesn't usually matter, but the torch cuts we make in the shaft do matter.

The problem is that if the torch cuts even a tiny slit in the axle shaft, that shaft may suffer from early breakage. The jagged and burnt groove made by a cutting torch often doesn't look like much but there usually is a very sharp v-shape at the bottom of the groove. And anytime you have a sharp groove or mark in a flexing or straining piece of metal, a crack will start quickly, travelling just like a crack in a windshield.

I've seen tractor axle shafts where the mechanic used a torch to skim-cut off a bearing, and the torch-damaged shaft broke within a few hours of use. So, if this torch damage happens, correct the damage before using the shaft.

The easiest way to repair a torch mark in an axle shaft is to grind away the damage, making a smooth, rounded valley to replace the sharp valley caused by the torch. Use a high-speed grinder with a smooth round stone. The groove doesn't have to be much bigger, just smooth and round. Finish polish by hand, with wet and dry, fine grit paper. The smoother the finish, the less chance there is of a crack starting in a sharp corner. Remember: the sharp corner may be too small to see, but a crack can start there anyway.

The same problem can occur when a bearing spins on the shaft, overheating and gouging the shaft. Sometimes the only cure here is to polish the shaft smooth, with a grinder or by hand sanding. Then, because the new bearing will be loose, use Loctite to lock on the bearing. The Loctite also helps prevent the forming of cracks because it makes a solid fit under all of the bearing race, spreading the load.

Avoiding the problem
When the inner race of a bearing has to be cut from the shaft, try heating it red hot with a very large torch. The race with heat up quickly first. If possible, keep the shaft cool with wet rags. As soon as the race is red hot, pull back the torch and let it cool slowly. Do not quench it with water or air. The slow cooling will soften the metal, making it easier to chisel. It may lose its press fit on the shaft, allowing it to be tapped off with a drift.

Or, when it's red hot, cut quickly with a chisel, to extend its diameter.

Remember: a little heat on the shaft is less risky than a sharp cutting torch groove. Take a clue from race engine builders. They polish a connecting rod until it is glass smooth. It may be smaller than original, but it is now stronger because the sharp corners and grooves (stress risers) have been polished away. Often, size is less important than having a smooth finish.

Keith Berglind is a licensed heavy-duty mechanic.

© copyright 1999 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..

back