By JIM ALGIE
Expected new environmental regulations “threaten the future of Ontario’s farming sector,” Grain Farmers of Ontario chair Henry Van Ankum said in a statement issued, Thursday.
Calling for “access to science and technology such as pesticides and seed treatments,” Van Ankum and Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association chairman Ray Duc announced formation of a new, four-member coalition called Farm Action Now. The group’s first meeting, Wednesday, yielded Thursday’s announcement.
A coalition of commodity groups representing grain, hog and bean growers as well as the fruit and vegetable association, Farm Action Now seeks “a balanced plan . . . to reasonably evaluate the challenges with agricultural policy and process,” Thursday’s statement says.
“This isn’t just about farmers – it’s about the future of Ontario as a whole,” Duc is quoted to say in the statement. “We want to send a message from farmers and about farmers but one that is aimed at benefitting all Ontarians,” Duc said.
It’s the latest skirmish in what appears to be an escalating battle over neonicotenoid pesticides and their disputed role in honey bee colony collapse. The word “neonicotenoid” does not appear in Thursday’s published statement but it’s clearly part of the background.
Interviewed late Thursday, following a long day that began on the combine, Van Ankum said pending neonic regulations are only part of the story.
“That’s the issue today; it could be a different issue tomorrow that might impact more heavily on the livestock sector or the horticultural sector,” said Van Ankum, who farms near Alma. “The pending regulations we feel will be coming towards the use of neonics on corn and soybeans in the province is really the thin edge of the wedge and that there might be many more heavy impact regulations to come,” he said.
Thursday’s announcement follows a recent meeting among Van Ankum, two other Grain Farmers’ representatives and Ontario Environment Minister Glen Murray. An entry published in Grain Farmers’ newsletter last week describes the meeting as “an opportunity to provide Murray with an overview of our commitment to protecting pollinators.” The newsletter also said the minister “raised a number of concerns related to agriculture, the environment and climate change.”
In an emailed statement to Better Farming, Thursday, before the Farm Action Now announcement, Murray’s spokesman Lucas Malinowski said the meeting was an opportunity “to discuss the ways in which we can work together to promote sustainable farming and agriculture in Ontario.” Both Murray and Leal are “interested in hearing the perspectives of farmers on ways in which we can work tougher together to protect the environment and pollinators,” he said. Malinowski could not be reached later for direct reaction to the Farm Action Now announcement.
Van Ankum has held many such meetings with government officials in recent weeks. But those sessions and mandate letters issued in September by Premier Kathleen Wynne to both Murray and Leal show “a real drive to have a heavy impact on current farming practices,” the grain farmers chairman said. He defended existing farm practices as “sound” for “our land and our communities and the environment around us.”
The new group seeks broad consultation among farmers and beekeepers, rural government officials and chambers of commerce. It “strongly urges” appointment of a commissioner to advise the government on regulatory measures and to “help grow the agricultural sector.” The coalition is open to additional farm groups, the statement said.
Premier Kathleen Wynne’s mandate letter to her newly-appointed agriculture minister sought “meaningful” and “measurable” reductions of neonicotenoid use for the 2015 growing season. The premier’s letter also directs introduction by 2016 of a system of permits and regulations requiring cuts in the use of neonicotenoid-treated seeds.
In early October, Leal told Better Farming reporter Susan Mann he’s working “to identify tangible ways to reduce the use of neonicotenoid-treated seeds for the 2015 growing season.” Van Ankum said at the time, the government plan is “not feasible” because seed purchases had already begun. Thursday’s announcement indicates Van Ankum, for one, is ready to pull out the stops to challenge the province’s yet-to-be announced plan.
“We believe the way the province wants to be guided so much by environmental special interests rather than considering what the needs are of its strong, agricultural industry is a misguided way to form policy in this province,” Van Ankum said.
Issues about neonic chemicals seem only to be escalating in Ontario and elsewhere.
One manufacturer of neonicotenoid seed treatments, Syngenta, has applied for license in both Canada and the United States to permit a formulation for uses as a foliar spray. Syngenta’s move coincides with re-evaluations by both Canadian and U.S. governments of neonicotenoid pesticide use. In late June, U.S. President Barack Obama authorized Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to create a national Pollinator Health Strategy by early 2015 in response to widespread concern.
A class action lawsuit launched on behalf of bee keepers in early September in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice claims damages exceeding $400 million from two defendant chemical makers: Bayer Inc. and Syngenta.
This story will continue to be updated as developments unfold. BF
Comments
Quote: A coalition of commodity groups representing Grain, Hog and Bean growers as well as the Fruit and Vegetable association.
Editor: Comment will be published in full if resubmitted and signed in accordance with our guidelines.
So, where does OFA stand or sit on this?
The profoundly incorrect assumption by the new group is that current mainstream agricultural practices are sound. This is not true. Chemical use is not needed. The only reason we don't have a purely ecological agricultural system is because of decades of corporate consolidation and market driven ideology that have left 99% of farmers with little to no market power and therefore little ability to change production methods. When farmers can barely make a living, when children of farmers want to leave, when land is being consolidated into fewer hands there are deep systemic problems.
If farmers got reasonable prices for their products and weren't drowning in debt I suspect that many, many more farmers would see environmental regulations as enhancing their production. As it stand the backdrop of the farm income crisis and the growing urban/rural divide leaves farmers caught in the middle, getting the short end of the stick and feeling set-upon.
It is not government regulations that are the enemy of farmers. It is the consolidated corporations that squeeze them at the front end and at the back end of their businesses. It's the corporations that have dug their roots deep into our 'democracy' and keep agricultural policy focussed on export, leaving farmers fighting for the lowest common denominator. It is not the 'marketplace' that is your saviour. The marketplace is rigged so that as much of farmer profit as possible flows into investor pockets.
It's time to build bridges between farmers and eaters, between urban and rural. Our issues are the same issues. Our suffering is common, our needs our common. This system is broken.
Your competely non-sensical diatribe must have been copied from the CFA propaganda handbook of 1979.
WHO THE HECK ARE YOU TO GIVE ADVICE TO GROWERS ?!?!
Anti-pesticide activists and government officials ARE the real enemy. These very same people have already DESTROYED the Professional Lawn Care Industry with the EXACT SAME STRATEGY. There will be NO CHOICE than to subject the government of Ontario to THE TERROR OF THE COURTS. We are the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that seek to destroy the Green space and other industries. WILLIAM H GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G Get the latest details at http://pesticidetruths.com/ http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/ http://wp.me/P1jq40-2rr https://www.facebook.com/norah.gfon
http://pesticidetruths.com/carnage-leading-to-business-failures/
http://pesticidetruths.com/2014/10/13/2009-and-2014-ontarios-anti-pestic...
Unfortunately, the Rural/Urban divide is becoming more the like the Serfs/Lords comparison.
Our issues are not remotely the same as we have seen the last two elections in Ontario.
Cities increasing populations gobble up valuable farmland as Urban-elected Governments impose stricter environmental regulations.
...and you have the nerve to try and blame big corporations for giving farmers the technical innovations and tools they need to compete in the competitive modern world !
I don't think it's fair to say that corporations 'give' their innovations to farmers. They make them pay for them. They make them pay at every opportunity. These corporations exist for 1 reason: to make money. They are legally obliged to do so. Do they do some good work as a result, sometimes. But corporations are the real pandemic that is destroying the human project.
What I don't understand is why many farmers seem to stand up for the same corporations that lock them into technology-use contracts, consolidate all the elevators and other infrastructure to be 'efficient' (read here: pay as little as possible to farmers). The only answer I have is that the culture of agriculture has become thoroughly corporate.
They provide your 'solutions' (usually to problems that were previously created by their products - like RR resistance in weeds let's say), they provide you with 'science' (usually their own studies, dubious to say the least) and they are ready to tell you that you are 'feeding the world' and give you a trip to Florida if you buy enough of their products.
Meanwhile all you hear from the rest of society is how you need to change this practice ("No Neonics") or that practice ("No Sow Crates!"). So it seems natural that you would see the Corporation as your ally and the public as your enemy.
What I don't think farmers see is that these Corporations are parasites turning farmers themselves into disposable commodities. Farmers are less that 2% of the population now. What sort of Canada will it be when several large farms control the majority of the acreage? Will we be a sovereign nation?
The phrase "feeding the world" was not coined by a corporation,the UN tells us food production has to double by 2050 to meet the increasing demand.
If we are to meet those demands farmers must take advantage of new technology,financial investments and a host of other innovative strategies There is certainly a price to pay for this technology but it is no different than any other bill in the mailbox.How much will every enviromental restriction cost us down the pipe ?
The truth of the matter is the urban consumer has a destorted preception that farms should remain small and inefficient,while the rest of the business world consolidates and grows increasingly wealthy.I was just reading a while back where Tech mergers and acquisitions are up 122% this year alone,with deals worth over 380 Billion.Media conglomerates have been gobbling up smaller companies at alarming rates.
As it pretains to farmers,the meat packing giants like Cargill and Tyson are not getting smaller.The large grocery chains are in the hands of 3 or 4 companies.
Everywhere you look, corporations are getting bigger,to think that farms are not going to increase in size is just unrealistic.There will always be the niche markets for some small farmers but they are at the whims of a overpaying public,that could change.
03:10 PM 14-11-18
In reply to "The Phrase 'Feeding The World' " http://betterfarming.com/comment/14875#comment-14875
You suggest that small family farms are inefficient. A recent report by the UN's FAO suggests otherwise (see http://www.fao.org/3/a-ak542e/ak542e17.pdf and others).
You do not mention risk and energy efficiency. These are important factors in determining the future of agriculture.
Large intensive agriculture systems have excessive risk levels. When things go well, the farmer earns a fortune. However, when bad weather or a disease outbreak, or some other problems occur, those same farmers expect to be saved by government subsidies and insurance, pushing the risk onto the public purse. That is the definition of moral hazard, and is a big problem.
Without plentiful, cheap fossil fuels, highly mechanized and intensive agriculture is unable to compete. Do we have guaranteed, unlimited supplies of low cost fossil fuels today? If not, intensive agriculture may be a bad bet for the future of all humans. Of course, the 1%'ers will make out quite well with the continuing of intensive agriculture.
Today, Michael Pollin reports that food in grocery stores takes 10 times more energy to produce than what is in the food. In other words, for the first time in the 300,000 history of humans, our food supply is unsustainable, and has a huge energy deficit.
Today, agriculture is the largest producer of green house gasses. Agriculture is far nastier than the Tar Sands, automobiles, jet airplanes, and electrical power generation combined. The UN's best brains recently reported that the use of fossil fuels must stop beforthe end of the century if humans are to survive the climate issues. Based on agriculture of today being the biggest culprit, where should we start on climate change issues and green house gas emissions? To me, it seems agriculture must lead the way to the new, low energy agriculture systems of the future.
However, you propose that we continue down this same road of intensive & high energy agriculture of the past? Please explain how this is our long term best interest.
Oxfam International (see http://www.oxfam.org/en/research/working-few ) reports that just 85 people own 50% of the world's wealth, and the other 7 Billion people on the planet share the other 50% of wealth, albeit unevenly distributed amongst those 7 Billion. Don't you think this is somewhat an uneven distribution? In spite of this, you seem to suggest we all agree for even more amalgamations and further concentration in all sectors of the economy. Please explain how this is in the best interest of the majority.
Most of our human systems and technologies of today are terribly flawed and unsustainable. Agriculture is one of the systems with the biggest flaws, and the greatests risks to humans. Most of the people of the world can live quite nicely without an even bigger screen TV. However, everybody needs to eat, drink water, and be safe during the night and bad weather. These precious commodities of food, water, and shelter are different from big screen TV's.
Food is at the opposite end of the spectrum from big screen TV's.
We need to do a lot better for food. Therefore, we need to do a lot better for all agriculture.
I agree that everywhere we look, corporations are getting bigger and taking over. Just because it is occurring doesn't mean it's in our best interest, nor that we should encourage more of the same.
All of the above are some of the background reasons for the formation of SFPFC.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada ("SFPFC")
How in the world are we ever going to get the younger generation interested in farming if we tell them they have to go back to stone tools,windpower and horses in an effort to save the world.Aside from the Amish,there are not many young farmers that would say they want to run the farm the same way as their Grandfather or even their father and turn a blind eye as modern farm technology passes them by.
Farmers use fossil fuels to grow food,its not like we are driving to work everyday or the cottage every summer weekend.
If it comes to survival,we will have to prioritize who needs the energy and fuel the most,water and food should be highest on the list.
I say small acreage farmers are ineffient and probably the worst energy users because l was one most of my life.Where a small farmer might take days to plough 50 acres,a larger farmer with much larger equipment takes a few hours.Its not hard to see why farmers with such huge investments in Equipment want everymore land and will continue to get larger.
In response to "The Young Farmers Can't Look Back" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14883#comment-14883
I agree that young farmers must be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, otherwise why would they bother taking over responsibility for the previous generation of farmer.
Today, old farmers are stuck, with few opportunities to retire, as there are too few interested in starting farming. That's why the average age of Canadian farmers gets older and older each year.
Turning your question back at you, why would a young person want to associate themselves with the worst greenhouse gas generator, factory farms, poor or questionable animal husbandry practices, food energy deficits, questionable environmental practices that create air, water & land pollution, and unsustainability?
I am not suggesting we all go back to Cave Man Days.
For example, it is less environmental footprint to raise lamb in New Zealand, freeze it, and ship it half way round the planet to the UK, rather than grow the lamb in the UK using antiquated and environmentally damaging methods for consumption in the UK.
What does New Zealand farmers know that UK farmers have failed to learn? Most Canadian farmers are closer (or worse) than UK farmers; at the opposite pole of New Zealand farmers. Why?
Supply Management and its factory farm systems are one of the worst offenders.
You state "Farmers use fossil foods to grow food". You seem to indicate that this is an acceptable use and fully justified. May I remind you that the UN report said end the use of ALL fossil fuels. Ag is one of the biggest users of fossil fuels (ie. diesel fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, dryers, etc.).
Fast plowing usually means high energy intensity, which is the biggest problem.
Small farms often have 1% to 0.1% of the energy usage that 300 hp tractors and huge combines require.
Small farms produce more food per acre than what large farms do.
Fast and "efficient" (as defined by the farm machinery manufacturers and the Big Ag. multi-nationals) is the biggest problem facing agriculture today.
We need to understand the consequence (ie. the hidden costs and risks) associated with fast and "efficient".
Large scale, high intensity, fast, and "efficient" farming are the main culprits for getting us into the mess we are currently in.
Offer a better ag. solution, and I suggest that we will likely attract many young farmers to join and participate in those more sustainable, more effective methods of farming.
Asking young farmers to join and support current Big Ag. methods is akin to asking them to invest in the largest and best buggy whip manufacturer in 1910. No matter how well they do their job, that buggy whip business is doomed by what will soon occur.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
I can't find any data that supports your assertion that small farms produce more food per acre than what large farms do. Please cite your source.
Also, what is your definition of "sustainable"?
Thank you.
I think Mr. Black is more than likely going down the road of market gardening as farming . Yes you can produce a pile of produce from a garden patch . I watched and helped my mother do it for years . Then it came to be that the family got smaller and it was cheaper to buy what you needed at the store if you actaully figured your labor was worth any thing , hydro, and time for canning . Same went for meat . We used to do a steer and a pig every spring . That too came to pass as we were not as many around the table .
I think some and too many are stuck with the Green Acres mentality when it comes to agriculture . Many times those are the vocal ones who cant see things for how they really are . Farming is no longer a lifestyle but a business . A global business . A global business that does not and should not care about feeding a few locals . That is where they buy local buy fresh farmer market garden farmer comes in . Good for those who want to do it . It is not mainstream agriculture , ask any hog , beef or cash crop farmer .
Yes there are some niche markets that may be very profitable and rewarding . Some might even screw their consumers on price . It just is not Agriculture as it has come to be today . I don't see Sam Drucker at the store any more either .
In response to "Some Questions On Your Response to Young Farmers" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14889#comment-14889
"Small farms produce more food per acre than large farms" is referenced by Michael Pollen's book "Omnivore's Dilemma", paperback version, pg. 161 where he says,
"In fact, study after study has demonstrated that, measured in terms of the amount of food per acre, small farms are actually MORE productive than big farms."
Peter Rosset, from the Institute for Food and Development Policy states:
"We've reviewed the data from every country for which it's available, comparing the productivity of smaller farms versus larger farms. By productivity, I mean the total output of agricultural products per unit area -- per acre or hectare. For every country for which data is available, smaller farms are anywhere from 200 to 1,000 percent more productive per unit area." See http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/smallfarmsbetter.cfm
George Monbiot says (see http://www.monbiot.com/2008/06/10/small-is-bountiful/ ) the small farm productivity advantage was first discovered in 1962 by the Nobel economist Amartya Sen (see http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/1962_14/4-5-6/an_aspect_of_indian_agr... ), and has since been confirmed by dozens of further studies. There is an inverse relationship between the size of farms and the amount of crops they produce per hectare. The smaller they are, the greater the yield.
If these references are still insufficient to convince you, use Google Search for many more similar references.
I define "sustainable" as any process that can continue to be implemented for at least 7 generations and longer ( ie. 500 to 1,500 years) without increasing inputs, degrading outputs, or increasingly adverse consequences (ie. pollution, depletion of resources, diminishing yields or efficiencies, disease, environmental damage, etc.).
Sustainability is a broad spectrum, a continuum from very bad to very good. Some processes are better than others. I'm not sure any process is perfectly sustainable.
For example, virgin forests and grasslands tend to have humus levels of 25% to 30%. Marshes, river bottoms, & swamps are even higher humus levels. Agriculture farmland started from either forests, swamps, or grasslands. Today, with just a few exceptions, most farmland in N. America are around 3.5% humus. Most commercial crops require the addition of chemical fertilizers to be able to produce commercially viable maturity and yields. I suggest this is the definition of a badly unsustainable process. The largest cycle of this farming process is defined as converting crude oil & natural gas to food. Intensive farming processes are not sustainable because they rely on depleting resources (soils and fossil fuels).
Let's look at the potato for the consequences of unsustainable farming. The potato is the #1 vegetable in N. America (ie. kg/person/yr). In the 1940's the potato was recognized as an excellent dietary source of Vitamin A, C, CU, Mg, Fe, Ca, P, B3, B6, and pantothenic acid (B5).
As of 1991, the potato has LOST:
~99.9% of its Vitamin A
57% of its Vitamin C
47% of its Copper
45% of its Iron
35% of its Calcium
Today, the potato is not much more than water and starch. Is this what you call sustainable? Is this proper farming? The potato got sick from depleted soils, and Big Ag. sponsored varieties that produce more kg per acre than former plant varieties. Do you see the problem with Big Ag's definition of "efficiency" and "yields"?
It isn't just the potato that is in trouble. Broccoli, carrots, tomatoes, salad greens, etc. have suffered similar fates under "modern" and "efficient" agriculture practices promoted by Big Ag.
No wonder we have multiple epidemics growing worse each year, all of which are caused or contributed to by poor diet & nutrition.
I trust there are some excellent farmers with very sustainable farming practices, who know far more about farming than I ever will. I am handicapped by my late start into agriculture. However, if I have been able to learn all this in the last 3 years during my spare time on nights and weekends, what is the excuse for those farmers with the advantage of 150 years of family farming experience over 7 or more generations? Why are they less aware, or less concerned, or wish to ignore these alarming facts about Big Ag. and our poor farming practices in Canada?
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
Yes Glen we hear you but you are still barking at your reflection in the mirror . When will you "get it" ?
How goes it with raising your 300 birds ?
In reply to "Food Vs. Agriculture" http://betterfarming.com/comment/14908#comment-14908
You state that I'm barking at my own reflection in the mirror. I don't understand what you mean by this. Please explain fully.
As for my farm, I continue to raise my 99 laying chickens, and provide fresh, ungraded farm eggs to my community every day. I still have my 1 meat chicken while my wife and I eat our way through our freezer full of our previous meat birds I produced but were unable to sell under current Small Flock Regulations. I also have ducks, geese, turkeys, goats, and livestock guardian dogs.
I have filed a request for reconsideration of the OMAFRA Tribunal's decision on my appeal against Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") (see http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2014/10/request-for-re-consider... ).
Asking the fox to reconsider his decision to eat one of my chickens has little chance of success, but it is a mandatory step in the long, twisted bureaucratic process of Supply Management.
Under CFO's Reg. 2484-2014 (see http://www.smallflock.ca/files/Small%20Flock%20Regulation.pdf ), Section 1.(j) states a Small Flock Grower is a person, and each person can grow 300 birds per year. Under Ontario law, corporations are persons, equal to flesh and blood persons.
I attended the recent seminar sponsored by Practical Farmers of Ontario http://practicalfarmersontario.ca , and heard Joel Salatin (Polyface Farms, see http://www.polyfacefarms.com ). Using mobile facilities as recommended by him, I can move my entire free range meat bird operation in an afternoon from one lot to another if I need to.
Therefore I'm making plans to rent (via 2 separate companies) 2 small patches of agricultural land from other farmers/owners, and those companies will have exclusive first rights to raise chickens on those farm lots. With my own farm, that will give me 3 separate lots. With 3 farm lots at 300 birds per lot, is 900 meat birds in total; totally in compliance under the current Supply Management rules. These 900 meat birds will nicely serve my local community.
Unfortunately, Section 21 of the Reg. says CFO can change the Small Flock Regulation any time they please. I am confident that CFO will harass me and others who dare to try this plan, or CFO will invent crazy definitions and twist the interpretation of their Small Flock Regulation so as to make my plan be prohibited, or arbitrarily and unilaterally change the CFO Regulation so that my plan is expressly banned.
You might conclude that I do not have much faith or trust in CFO.
I don't.
CFO has a valuable monopoly to protect. CFO's members are all multi-millionaires, but they wish to become billionaires. Many of CFO members have slowly become trapped puppets who are controlled by Big Ag.
Therefore CFO will likely do anything necessary to protect their monopoly, and achieve the goals of their members and Big Ag.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
Comment modified by editor.
I checked your data sources. The first two are references to statements, not facts. The third is a paper, written in 1962, about agriculture in India. Seriously?
So I went to the googles (because that's where so many people look to find their "truth") and came up with plenty of examples of articles and papers, from obviously pro-organic sources. These contradict each other, with about 50% saying small farm yield is higher, and 50% saying it's lower.
I'm still looking though.
Maybe CFO has rubbed off on you a little bit, where, if you state something, regardless of the facts, it must be true.
Who in the UK is most affected by Lamb exports from New Zealand,the small flock farmers! The same would be said of sheep farmers in Canada,only the large sheep farmer would survive over a period of depressed prices due to offshore imports.
How have Pork Producers in this Province survived the last decade of poor prices,because they have been forced to consolidate,the small Pork farmer is long past gone.
You can't expect farmers to keep driving their 98 pickup truck while their urban counterparts drive by in their new gas-guzzling Hummer.I reject your claim that New more powerful farm equipment uses more energy.I am pretty sure even Amish farmers will tell you that using 3 or 4 horses to plough uses far less energy than 1 and much faster.
Small farms, like a lot of small businesses are labour intensive and if they are not then it means they are receiving above average price for their in-demand product.
You see the stories all the time about small business (or farms) that are successful but they are always in some ways unique as well.
The K-W record had such a story a few years ago, when Beef prices were in a tailspin.Seems a small landowner raising grass-fed,hormone-free organic beef selling to restaurants and locally was making a good living while charging a healthy premium for his product.He wondered why others were not trying to do the same?
He didn't realize that if a few or more of his neighbours WHERE to do the same thing that his healthy premium prices would be the 1st thing to disappear.
Asking young farmers to keep small,work with older equipment and longer hours,while at the same time trying to endue fluctuating market prices is not feasible nor realistic
Its like (in a couple weeks) coming back home to watch the Grey Cup on your 25inch TV after just being down at the neighbours the night before in front of his Ultra HD,LED 60 inch Flat screen.
If your not moving ahead your going backwards.
Glenn,
What a well put together and articulate response. Thank-you!
I am a 1st generation farmer. I got into farming because I see it as a primary driver in our society, a driver that I can directly impact. I run a diverse small farm focussing on soil health and selling direct to eaters. It is thrilling to work with animals and complex biological systems as well as be in direct contact with my customers.
The current industrial/chemical models of farming are efficiently leading us down a road to hell. Glenn does very well to identity 'efficiency' as one of the foundational ideas of 'modern' farming that has passed its prime. In this new era, where we face many and diverse difficulties (growing inequality, global food insecurity, climate change, etc.) the assumptions that shaped agriculture's past are no longer useful. Efficiency as a metric of what qualifies as 'innovation' is no longer useful when two factors are considered: peak oil and externalities.
Peak oil is the point at which our century long assumption of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels shifts to a reality of expensive and scarce fossil fuels. It's too big a topic to explore here but there are many resources around that explain it in a reasonable manner: http://www.resilience.org/primer
Suffice to say that a system that produces 1 calorie of food for each 10 calories of fossil fuel it uses (Pollan) will not last under these developing circumstances.
Externalities. The efficiency so often attributed to 'modern' agriculture produces some incredibly awful outcomes that are not accounted for in reckoning of its lauded 'efficiency.' There are many: phosphorus run-off created algal blooms, carbon releases adding to climate change, loss of organic matter in soils reducing water retention, acute and diffuse environmental degradation from pesticide, development of antibiotic resistant bacteria just to mention a few of the less controversial ones. Ecosystems can no longer take our waste without complaint. The public is increasingly unwilling to participate in practices that result in negative externalities.
Does this make the 'modern' farmer wrong? Certainly not. It is my assertion that the many farmers out there today have in been cajoled, incentivized, courted and convinced by both government and big agri-business for DECADES that they are doing a great job. And they are - from a particularly narrow definition of the word efficiency. We are in the midst of an enormous shift in the agricultural sector where the old is being swept away by new ideas that are more in line with our times. These old ideas have the power of history and time on their side though so things are slow going.
If we were to ask what it is we want out of agriculture? Yield is certainly on the list and so is export but they are not on the top. Nutrition, food security, societal health, equity for everyone along the value chain, ecosystem enhancement, soil building, resilience... These are some things that the current model cannot seem to manage with such a myopic focus on yield increases and export.
The farming of the future will be diverse in scale and approach. It will certainly recognize that soil biology is the fundamental basis of sound agriculture. Groups like those in the article we are commenting on are locked into an antiquated set of ideas that are slowing down the inevitable transition to an agricultural model that fits our times.
I'm doing my best to educate myself about what the other 98% of farmers do by reading conventional ag. publications. I suggest those in disagreement do the same for the ecological, organic and diversified literature.
Name was provided but removed by editor. It will be added if the author provides a phone number for verification.
I think that the readers would be interested to know a few things. How long have you been farming? What crops? How many acres? What are your experiences so far?
As a conventional farmer l have read literature on ecological and organic issues.
I have read where big companies like Walmart,Costco,Kellogg,General Mills and Danone have been ever increasing their share in the Organics movement.I have read about the outsourcing of ever cheaper organic products from around the globe,from Countries like China,Sierra Leone and Brazil.
Where a shortage of organic milk for Yogurt might mean using powdered milk from an organic farm in New Zealand 9,000 miles away.
What was once a small industry of family farms has become big business,including pressure from Wall Street to scale up and boost profits.
As food companies scramble to find enough organically grown ingredients, they are inevitably forsaking the pastoral ethos that has defined the organic lifestyle. For some companies, it means keeping thousands of organic cows on industrial-scale feedlots.
The Corporate giants have turned a fringe food category into a multi-billion dollar business.They have also shown that staying small and true to an ecological mandate is easier talking about it than actually doing it.
I wonder what it will take to wake people up to other alternatives? 60% loss of bees isn't enough? The destruction of water and dead fish everywhere in PEI? People getting sicker from their food...from their exposure to pesticides? Scientific evidence that does not agree with industry isn't science? Should we ask the industry if their products are harmful? LOL! We are so far behind the rest of the world today in all environmental issues and we think we can just move to another planet? The vision of these people is extremely myopic and very driven by industry and NOT independent science.
the anti-GMO, anti-pesticide, never been anywhere near a farm, Whole Food worshiping (aka Monsanto hating) activists are working hard to strip you, the farmer, of your ability to do your job of continuing to provide the world with safe, healthy food. They believe they know better than you (and science) how to do your job. Both supply managed and non-supply managed farmers should be equally afraid of the fear that is being spread far and wide. It threatens you all.
Your Logical is far from true,
There are many farmers who are anti GMO and anti Pesticide they are either certified organic or maybe even IP growers, So to say that it is only some far right suburbanites is simply not true.
We final get several science backed reports on NeoNic's and now because that science isn't pro BIG AG, the science is discredited as no good, how ridicules, top Ag school in the world Purdue publishes reports about the unnecessary use of NeoNic's and now they don't know what they are talking about, come on get with the program.
Just because some thing isn't Pro Agriculture doesn't mean you can discredit it, as farmers we are not always going to like how the systems works and its good that there are people out there who can stand up and say hold on a second and not allow Agriculture to stream roll our health and environment, we need to take an approach that has both a moral and science based approach to finding the best solution.
I am always perplexed by how many farmers claim to be Christians but have no moral compass when it comes to looking after Gods Creation and think they use it however they want as long they are returned a profit.
Sean McGivern
Practical Farmers of Ontario.
It seems the poster does not know that many farmers who grow IP products do use chemicals and pesticides . He seems to have his organic tougue too tight again .
Funny how when some one does not know what he doesn't know , that all of a sudden it becomes a Christian , God , Religoius excuse .
You wrote that “its good that there are people out there who can stand up and say hold on a second and not allow Agriculture to stream roll our health and environment”.
Steam roll our health and environment?
A common fallacy that urbanites (and apparently some farmers) believes is that conventional production is “toxic” or “poisonous” while organic production is healthier. Again and again independent, peer-reviewed scientific evidence proves that this is untrue.
Better for the environment? Most urbanites also assume that organic farmers don’t use pesticides or fertilizers, but there are hundreds of “organic” pesticides and fertilizers that farmers can and do use every day. GMOs? There’s thorough scientific consensus on safety, plus research arrives daily proving that GMOs significantly increase farm yields while decreasing pesticide use and soil erosion? Neonics? I’m waiting for the scientific consensus here. In my humble opinion I suspect a good portion of the hue and cry is tied to the “Big Organic” agenda.
And since you raised a discussion on right and wrong, let me spell out what I believe is wrong.
It is wrong to manipulate consumers, using fear mongering and guilt, into wasting their family’s scarce food dollars buying premium priced organic food that is no healthier or safer than conventionally grown food.
It is wrong that, through the demonizing of conventional farming, if a young mother can’t afford to buy organic foods, she is made to feel guilty because she fears she might be “poisoning” her family.
As a young urban mother I see it happen every day. And as a lowly consumer with no skin in the ag game it makes me very angry.
Your quote was “we need to take an approach that has both a moral and science based approach to finding the best solution”.
You’re right. You do.
Post new comment