January 2002
How much help do you need from a CCA?
Not too much, say the producer boards. But, if the government is going to require nutrient management plans for all users, Certified Crop Advisers stand ready to assistby DON STONEMAN
Will a Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) play a role in your farming decisions? Much depends on the regulations that roll out of Queen's Park this winter as part of the province's new nutrient management law, Bill C-81.As defined in the new bill, "nutrients" is not just a drawing-room term for manure, asserts Tom Bruulsema, past chair of the Ontario Certified Crop Advisors Board. It also includes commercial fertilizers, as well as biosolids and septage.
"The devil is in the details," says Don McCabe, second vice-president of the Ontario Corn Producers Association. Both the corn association and the Ontario soybean board are expecting that nutrient management plans will be phased in over five years, with commercial grain and oilseeds growers among the last group required to have such plans drawn up.
So who is a certified crop advisor in Ontario? You don't have to pack a Bachelor of Science degree to be able to carry the term CCA (Ontario) after your name, says Bruulsema. However, a CCA applicant with a BSc gets there faster, with only two years of experience in dealing with cropping clients needed for certification, compared to four for a high school graduate. You don't have to be certified to be advising producers, Bruulsema adds. However, certification increases credibility.
Bruulsema says the certification process is no cakewalk. First, the applicant is examined by the International Certified Crop Advisor Program, administered by the American Society of Agronomy based in Milwaukee, Wis. A second exam is specific to Ontario. Bruulsema says the combined pass rate is a little less than 60 per cent. "For all practical purposes, it is the Ontario exam that sets the bar here," he says.
The same board that hands out certificates will also investigate formal complaints. If an advisor is found to have provided advice contrary to accepted science or in contradiction of existing laws, the violation can be reported to the CCA board of directors and, after a hearing, the certification may be removed.
That has never happened in Ontario, says Al Hamill, the CCA's current president, and a Harrow-based agronomist with Agriculture Canada. Hamill adds that some CCAs have voluntarily given up their credentials because they aren't advising farmers any more, and no longer carry the designation.
Hamill expects that most crop advisors won't want to be involved in nutrient management plans. Those who do will likely have to take some additional training. Many farmers will do their own plans, he says.
A nutrient management plan requires strong agronomy behind it, says Bruulsema. "If government is going to require nutrient management plans for all users, it is essential that there be a professional standard for those providing that component of the NMP."
CCAs see their services coming into demand to write these plans, adds Bruulsema, though "perhaps not for every grower and not for every situation. Certainly where there is a scale of operation that requires a greater professional standard of planning and documentation is required, the CCAs stand ready to assist."
And just how much assisting should cash crop farmers need? Not too much, say the Ontario Soybean Growers and the Ontario Corn Producers Association. "Our position is pretty simple," says Bill Allison, vice-president, Ontario Soybean Growers. We want to make sure that what we do is very simple and isn't too onerous in terms of the paperwork." He admits that it "would be difficult to document" that most farmers are soil testing.
The Corn Producer's Don McCabe asserts that, before the government attempts to make stringent fertilizer application rules, more research is needed, especially in measuring nitrogen levels in soil. There is also a need for more science behind the amount of nutrients needed to produce a crop. The old rules of thumbs about the pounds of nitrogen needed to produce a bushel of corn might work in the deep soils in Illinois, McCabe says, but they don't necessarily stand up in Ontario.
Cash croppers have a certain amount of cynicism about this process. "I have to be careful how I phrase this," says Corn Producers chairman Dennis Jack. "I'm led to believe there are numerous consulting firms rubbing their hands together with some glee, waiting for this all to happen." BF
© copyright 2002 AgMedia Co-operative Inc..
back
Guidelines for your corn hybrid selection in 2002
With marketers outnumbering agronomists, you must increase your own agronomy skills. That means paying particular attention to your hybrid selectionby PATRICK LYNCH
All the old adages still hold true. Hybrid selection is the most important decision you make that can affect yield. In 2001, there was a 20-30 bu/ac difference between two hybrids in the same field. Some hybrids they should pay you to grow. Giving you free seed is not good enough. Hybrids have such a short life span that you have only just got to know them when they change or disappear. Or the hybrid numbering system is so confusing that you cannot remember which hybrid did well for you last year.These problems are compounded by the war now going on between marketers and agronomists. Agronomists add up all the factors that should be considered in placing a hybrid on certain field. Marketers are more concerned with market share, tying seed sales to herbicide choices and generally encouraging you to pick your hybrid on factors other than agronomic. Discounts tied to volume encourage you to choose a second-best hybrid if you place all your orders with one company. And there are more marketers every year and fewer agronomists. That means you must increase your own agronomy skills.
Side-by-side comparisons are turning into something of a popularity contest -- whoever has the most comparisons wins. These are comparisons over all soil types, planting conditions and management regimes. They really won't help you pick a hybrid for a certain field. However, the absolute number of comparisons provides a clue. If one hybrid has been in 10 times as many comparisons as another has, a lot more farmers probably grew it.
Here are some rules to help guide your choices:
1. Make the hybrid fit the field. In many cases, different hybrids respond differently to different soil types. Hybrids with a good root system tend to do better on heavier soils, while a hybrid with a poorer system does well on nice loamy soils. Granted, most fields have variable soil types but generally each field has a predominant soil type. Most companies have a drought-resistant hybrid and a hybrid for heavy soils.
2. Watch disease spectrums. Certain hybrids are more prone to Anthracnose, others to Fusarium. Anthracnose is more apt to be a problem in continuous cornfields. We still have not figured out Fusarium. If your favourite hybrid is prone to Fusarium but yields well, don't plant too much of it.
3. Bushel weight, while not an issue these last two years, is a concern. For high moisture corn, it's probably not a big deal. But it is an issue if you are selling to an elevator.
4. When comparing maturities, advertisements have been boasting that "mine is shorter than theirs" or "theirs is longer than mine." Over the last two years, we have had significantly more than normal Heat Units. This year, in the side-by-side comparisons, the "more-than-full-season" hybrids are winning. But don't count on them for all your plantings. Choose longer than full-season hybrids but have a cut-off planting date of May 2-3. In other words, if the corn is not planted by that day, return it and plant a full-season hybrid until May 10-15.
5. Pick a hybrid first on its yield ability and second on its herbicide traits -- unless you have a very unique weed problem. But do not discard a hybrid just because it has a herbicide tolerance. I am concerned when a hybrid has Bt linked to a herbicide characteristic. The choice is to pick another non-Bt hybrid with that herbicide tolerance or not to plant "refugia" corn. In the first case, you will probably take a yield hit with current hybrids. In the latter, you may be violating the agreements of for using Bt hybrids.
6. Standability was a big issue in 2001. However, the conditions we experienced were phenomenal. The lodging we saw in 2001 should not be expected in 2002. Standability was a factor in plants shutting down early. Lignin is needed for standability and is laid down later in plants' life. By the time it should have been laid down in 2001, the plants had already shut down.
There are a number of ways to zero in on your choices. For maturity, check both the corn Performance Trials and company literature. For the Ontario Corn Performance Trials, the company gets to decide the hybrid's maturity.
Most companies have good literature on the relative attributes of their hybrids. You cannot compare across companies. One company's "6" rating for stalk strength may be another company's "8" and sometimes the company's information differs from what the dealer says.
Check competing company trials. If you are checking out a Novartis hybrid, see how it did in the Pioneer and Dekalb plots. Then see how the Dekalb hybrid did in the Pioneer and Novartis plots.
And talk to your local dealer. Generally they are pretty knowledgeable and they want to sell you seed again next year. BF
Patrick Lynch, CCA (ON), is Head Agronomist for Cargill in Ontario.
© copyright 2002AgMedia Co-operative Inc..
back
Coming this winter: the new "wind chill index"
The old imprecise "wind chill factor" is being abandoned in favour of a more accurate measure to help keep you safe and sound in cold weatherby HENRY HENGEVELT
A recent survey suggests that some 80 per cent of Canadians regularly use wind chill information provided in daily weather forecasts to decide how to dress for outside activity in winter, or even whether to undertake such activities. With more than 80 deaths in Canada each year from exposure to cold, and many more cases of hypothermia and frostbite, such information is not only important to our comfort, but to our safety and well-being. Hence, advice on wind chill is an important part of winter weather warnings.However, starting this winter, the Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC) has made an important change in how it reports wind chill in its daily forecasts. The old "wind chill factor" is out, and a new, more accurate indicator known as the wind chill index is in.
Forecasters have argued for years that the old wind chill factor was inappropriate as a true measure of the loss of heat and the risk of frostbite on skin exposed to the combined effects of cold temperatures and wind. Based on experiments with water in a small plastic cylinder undertaken by Antarctic explorers more than 60 years ago, the mathematical equation used to calculate the old factor used winds measured 10 meters above the ground, rather than at the height of a human standing on the ground. Furthermore, it failed to consider the effect of living tissue on the loss of heat and moisture, two key factors in determining how much the wind will cool the skin surface below that of the air itself. As a result, these calculations exaggerated the amount of wind chill felt by humans.
About two years ago, MSC conducted a survey of Canadians to determine how well they understood the existing wind chill information and how they used such advice. Results suggested that there was indeed some confusion about what wind chill information really meant, but that most understood the concept. They also indicated that wind chill advice made most sense when expressed in temperature-like units -- that is, units that helped equate the risk of frostbite under windy conditions to that for an actual air temperature under calm conditions. Aware that other countries with cold climates were also interested in the development of a better wind chill indicator, Canada then convened an experts workshop on the Internet that brought together the input from more than 400 participants from 35 countries.
Using the advice provided through this workshop, a team of scientists and medical experts from Canada and the United States worked together to design experiments and computer models that could accurately determine how much heat loss human skin actually encountered in wind. They began by developing a computer model of how the human face (the part of the body most exposed to winter air) loses heat to moving air. The resulting complex equation uses winds measured at 10 meters but then converts that to the weaker winds a human face would feel at a height of 1.5 meters. Winds are assumed to be calm if less that 4.8 km/h. Also factored into the equation is the resistance of skin to heat loss.
Six men and six women were then used as guinea pigs to test the models in clinical experiments. Each was required to take a series of four "long" walks, dressed in winter clothes, on a treadmill in a refrigerated wind tunnel at the Toronto facilities of the Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine (an agency of Canada's Department of National Defence).
Each walk lasted for 90 minutes, with the first 30 minutes of the walk facing a "headwind" of about 8 km/h, then 30 minutes at winds of 18 km/h and finally 30 minutes at winds of almost 30 km/h. Only the face was exposed to the wind. The air temperature in the wind tunnel for one of the walks was at -10(C, another at 0(C and then one at +10(C. Finally, each volunteer had to do another "wet" walk at +10(C temperatures, this time with water being lightly splashed into their face every 15 seconds to test how a wet skin surface changed heat loss.
During the walks, five heat sensors were fastened to the volunteer's face -- one on each cheek, one on the forehead, another on the nose, and one on the inside of a cheek -- to monitor the effect of the wind chill on the actual skin surface temperature. As one volunteer noted, while the "wet" walk certainly increased the discomfort level, it was the heat sensor inside the mouth that was most annoying, since the walkers were not supposed to open their mouths during the experiments.
The results of these clinical trials helped to calibrate the model equation for wind chill so that it could accurately compare the rate at which frostbite could occur under windy conditions with that for equivalent temperatures under calm conditions. The new index is now available in weather forcasts across North America (using Fahrenheit units south of the border), and is also being considered as a possible standard for international use. Further developments are underway to provide a "wet wind chill index" as well, and to consider how the effects of sunlight on the face might be added into the index in the future.
Avoiding physical discomfort and harm due to cold outdoor temperatures in winter still requires appropriate winter clothing and the use of common sense. However, the new index should serve as a more appropriate tool to help us do so. May it help all of you through a frostbite-free winter! BF
Henry Hengeveld is senior science advisor on climate change for Environment Canada.
© copyright 2002AgMedia Co-operative Inc..
back
Score a big win for supply management, but troubled waters still lie ahead
The WTO's ruling on dairy exports was a significant victory for Canadian producers. But will Canada's resolve withstand the rough and tumble of upcoming trade talks in Geneva?by BARRY WILSON
Perspective 1: Ontario's powerful and prosperous dairy industry has good reason to feel confident and optimistic heading into the New Year. It finished 2001 with some significant political victories, not the least of which was the endorsement of dairy interests and the supply management system in December by trade minister Pierre Pettigrew."My uncles are dairy producers," he told the Senate agriculture committee, vowing to support supply management in future trade talks, despite American criticisms. "I know it very well. We just run things differently."
Perspective 2: Ontario's powerful and prosperous dairy industry has good reason to be apprehensive and uneasy, knowing that the foundation of its supply management system is about to be subjected to intense and far-from-certain bargaining in the months ahead.
Both perspectives are accurate. Those who believe in half-full glasses and half-empty ones both might have a chance to say "I told you so."
First to the "half-full" crowd. After four years of doubt and negative judgments, the World Trade Organization finally ruled in December that critics in the United States and New Zealand had not proven their case that Canada's dairy export policy violates WTO export subsidy rules.
Score a big one for Canada. A negative decision would have killed the attempt to expand Canadian dairy production by pursuing export sales outside the quota- and price-setting rules of the domestic system. After the Dec. 3 WTO decision, it is full speed ahead in planning an export strategy for Canadian dairy products.
"The dairy decision was the best day in my life that I can recall," Sen. Jim Tunney, a 74-year-old dairy industry legend, told the trade minister. Pettigrew said it proved Canada can defend the dairy marketing system it chooses.
Enter the pessimists, the "half-full" people. Canada did, after all, enter the New Year having signed an agreement to launch a new round of world trade talks that will put supply management very much at risk. Canada claims it will defend the system to the end. The official government line is that supply management is "not on the table," a domestic marketing choice not open to international bargaining. At best, this is naïve optimism. At worst, and most likely, it is a deliberate political lie.
Supply management is a domestic marketing system which relies upon high tariffs for protection from cheaper foreign imports. The words "supply management" are not on the bargaining table at WTO talks in Geneva. However, tariff levels most certainly are and Canada is a primary force in pushing for the lowering of other countries' protective tariffs.
Meanwhile, Canada says it is committed to defending the tariffs it uses to protect sensitive agricultural sectors. Other countries will suggest this is hypocrisy. At the very least, selective tariff cuts will be a tough sell at WTO talks. If not all tariffs should be cut, who gets to choose which ones?
True, the Canadian government talks tough when vowing to protect supply management to the end. Yet farmers who depend on the system can legitimately wonder if that political commitment has any chance of success in the rough and tumble of trade negotiations. BF
Barry Wilson is a member of the Parlimentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture
© copyright 2001AgMedia Co-operative Inc..
back