The Provincial cosmetic use pesticide ban will be bad news for farmers

(Rural Voice column for March 2008 issue)
Premier Dalton McGuinty promised to institute a province wide ban on the use of cosmetic pesticides. The Law would limit the use of all lawn care products inside cities and towns. It is part of a wider program to reduce the exposure of the general public to environmental toxins. The theory is that there is no need to use chemicals just to have pristine green lawns. Who wouldn't be against mere cosmetic use? Just change your way of looking at Dandelions and Creeping Charlie and everyone will be healthier, Right?

Actually what happened in Hudson Quebec and Halifax, Nova Scotia is that pesticide sales went up not down after those town councils instituted a ban. People who want to have weed free lawns will find the chemicals either by buying them legally before the ban goes into effect or by going to a jurisdiction that doesn’t have a ban. Worse than this these bans also removed the trained professional Lawn care companies. So now instead of a few people who were trained to safely work with the products every day we have thousands of garages and garden sheds with opened partially used containers of lawn and garden chemicals.

Non scientific consumer paranoia whipped up by the environmental groups cannot be allowed to set public policy in this area. I have attended municipal meetings on the issue and can only describe a lot of what went on as bordering on mass hysteria. The Ontario College of Family Physicians did a pesticide literature review which they released in 2004 It is widely responsible for the call for the province wide ban on lawn herbicides because it was supposedly scientific proof that pesticides have harmed children. What has not been widely reported is the repudiation of that same report by British scientists. To quote from the British analysis by Dr. Michael Burr (http://www.rcep.org.uk)
"The review seems to over-interpret the findings, given the limitations of the relevant studies; strong conclusions are drawn from evidence of rather weak quality."

Yet this same report is being used as hard new evidence which proves the need for the pesticide ban. The report doesn't take into account all the other areas of toxicological studies done in the pesticide registration process. The Crop protection companies have to prove the safety of any new pesticide before it can be used in Canada. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment review this data and can even ask for more studies before they allow pesticides to be used in Ontario.
In my own case I use a 3 way mix of herbicides on my postage stamp front lawn but rely on mowing to control the natural back lawn. I have found that raising the lawn mower so that it cuts at 3- 6 inches height not only allows the grass to choke out the weeds. The grass also stays greener through dry periods because taller grass also has a deeper more vigorous root system. One of my friends has hand weeded every single dandelion out of his lawn because he doesn’t want to use Chemicals. I totally support such individual choices on this issue. However I resent anyone forcing their philosophy on me and then wrapping it in the cloak of health and safety. Especially when it is bogus science and false health issues. The main lawn chemical 2,4-D has recently received a clean bill of health from the federal government’s Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency. If you follow Label directions you will not cause environmental or health problem. (www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/highlights/QA/rev2,4-D-e.html)

The problem is that if this precedent is set it will not be long before a whole bunch of regulations will be foisted on us by a well meaning but scientifically and technologically illiterate public. The agricultural exemption just causes the largest group of knowledgeable trained users to remain silent. I don’t think farmers realize the huge public policy mistake this proposed legislation will cause.

Why not just force homeowners who want to apply pesticides to take the pesticide safety course that farmers have to take. This should also keep the lawn care businesses viable in the province. This profession is already doing a better job than homeowners in providing a high level of safe pesticide use not to mention the economic benefits of the hundreds of jobs they create are.
If you are going to pass this useless bill then the liberal government should be honest and say, "although there is no proven health risk or safety issue we are passing this bill for two reasons. First of all municipalities are not qualified to pass by laws in this area and consequently don't need to waste their time on this issue".

It appears Premier McGuinty would rather have his picture taken with children and pander to popular opinion than take real leadership on this issue. It would be easier, cheaper and more effective to change the classification of the lawn pesticides so that they can no longer be sold to unqualified homeowners. By agreeing to a pesticide ban the premier is inadvertently smearing the entire conventional agriculture industry as causing environmental and health problems.

Growing Heat

Growing heat

February 2008 Rural voice column by John Beardsley

Ontario’s greatest energy need isn’t for gasoline for vehicles but for thermal energy to heat our homes and businesses and to power factories. Right now many Ontario greenhouses are heated with American coal . Our dependence on natural gas and fuel oil is massive. Switchgrass production offers the opportunity for Ontario farmers to grow an alternative crop and reduce greenhouse gases at the same time.

If you can grow hay, you can grow switchgrass; it is a tall grass native to Ontario and the prairies. It is a small seeded crop which is established in the same way as alfalfa. Roger Samson from REAP-Canada says switchgrass can be cropped on a field almost indefinitely once established (REAP is the acronym for Resource Efficient Agricultural Production, a nonprofit research organization which has been working on sustainable agriculture projects for over twenty years).

This alternative biofuel crop can be grown on marginal crop land with 2600 corn heat units or less; basically wherever corn is less productive. This would encompass a lot of land in Grey Bruce and Dufferin counties as well as parts of eastern and northern Ontario.

Switchgrass can grow on droughtier soils but also on less well drained soil where alfalfa doesn’t do well, so actually if you can’t grow alfalfa for some soil type and drainage reasons you may have more luck with switchgrass.

The crop is fertilized in the spring with 60 pounds of nitrogen, then allowed to grow all year, cut in November and left out until May when it is baled by a large square baler. The grass is left out to weather naturally so as to reduce the amount of plant by-products which interfere with clean combustion of the switchgrass. The crop yields 4-5 tonnes per acre.

Sampson says right now natural gas heats homes for about $11 a gigajoule. If farmers were paid $90 dollars a tonne for the switchgrass, and processing and transportation costs were added in, he figures pellets could be delivered for $8 a gigajoule. But to kickstart the industry he would like to see the provincial and federal governments providing subsidies equivalent to those provided to the ethanol industry.

One homeowner featured on a video on the REAP-Canada site said he heated his home for $400 per year, which was a huge savings from the $2,000 he paid previously for electric heat

Most corn stoves can burn switchgrass and the furnace marketers claim the stove/furnace pays for itself in a very short time frame, usually less than three years. Initially the stoves required more physical effort of carrying bags of fuel pellets to the furnace and loading them manually into the fuel hopper attached to the furnace. Many people will want the simplicity of traditional fossil fuels and so there are houses set up with feed tanks next to the furnace which automatically feed the furnace. These tanks are then filled by a delivery truck with an air blower system currently used on feed trucks to conveniently deliver the fuel as needed

Quebec is planning on growing almost five thousand acres this year due to a grass buffer strip cost share program and the promotion of switchgrass as an alternative fuel crop.

The big advantage of switchgrass versus cellulose ethanol is the cost to process the crop into useable fuel. A cellulose ethanol factory would cost $300 million to get built whereas a switchgrass pelleting plant could be built for as little as $3 million for a facility that would produce 30,000 tonnes of pellets per year.

Another advantage that switchgrass has over fuel oil is that the plants can be built near the crop production areas to lessen their transportation costs for the bulky raw switchgrass bales. This also provides local employment, and tax revenue for rural municipalities.

With a small shift in agricultural land we can replace the entire fuel oil sector, which is a limited resource, with a renewable sustainable fuel source. Information on the REAP-Canada site estimates a 4% shift in farmland would replace 39% of our energy needs. This is far superior to the amount of land needed for liquid biofuels which would replace far less gasoline and diesel. Plus it can provide farmers with a sustainable income to increase rural prosperity. REAP-Canada would like to see more discussion amongst farm groups and government policy makers to embrace this ecologically and economically sound heating fuel alternative for the province. For more information check out REAP-Canada’s website www.reap-canada.com

.

18 may 2006 for june 2006 issue of Rural Voice

Making sense of the agricultural census

A column by John Beardsley

The planting season has been one of the best on record and this has been the most positive news in agriculture since the Paul Martin government was defeated. Getting a crop in and off to a good start is the most crucial operation on the farm. It has been said that a farmer’s time at planting is worth hundreds of dollars per hour because of how important it is to get crops planted in a timely manner. Which is why farmers are especially irritated these days by surveys and salesmen. Unfortunately this attitude has also rubbed off on the good men and women who are trying to get the Agricultural Census completed. The grassroots movement has been openly talking about actively boycotting the whole process. One Farmer from Middlesex County has said that information is worth 250 dollars and he doesn’t want to give away the information for free. I’m not holding my breath this would ever happen because of the precedent it would set. The census is not a new phenomenon foisted on us by an increasingly heavy-handed government keen on reducing the number of farmers in Canada. I read in the gospel of Luke back 2000 years ago in Bible times that “Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world”. 2000 years ago everyone had to travel back to their own town to register. We can fill out this census on the Internet.

I understand the frustration causing people to lash out at the census because of the lack of serious response from the government to a very real farm income crisis. But the data collected from this census will show some of the dramatic changes that have occurred in the last five years. I think this information will be more useful to us to confront the government than the short hit we might get on television or in the press by boycotting it. If you have already decided not to comply I would ask you to reconsider. Although census day was May 16^th Stats Canada will still accept forms filled out now. In fact if you haven’t sent yours in you can expect a visit from an enumerator. Some people are concerned that the information will be used to check the accuracy of your tax form and you may unwittingly get in trouble or cause an audit. It has always been the case that all information on census forms, including financial information, is protected under confidentiality provisions in the Statistics Act. All census representatives are sworn to secrecy and could be prosecuted if they were ever to reveal a respondent's personal information.

Here is some interesting information gleaned from stats canada’s press release. In 1931 the census — the first to specifically record the farm population — noted that 3.3 million of Canada’s 10.4 million people lived on farms, a whopping 31.7% of the population. Still more lived in rural areas closely tied to the agricultural sector. While the Canadian population had grown to over 30 million by the 2001 Census, the farm population had dwindled to only 2.4%. This fact is a big reason why we get ignored. Farmers, a minority even in many rural areas, still produce over 8 percent of the gross domestic product. Canada’s 247,000 farms have been producing more than ever before. In 2001, only 346,200 Canadians identified themselves as farm operators, a drop of nearly 40,000 since 1996. In Bruce, Grey and Huron Counties, the last census identified 11,170 people running 8059 farms. (Sorry Perth and Rainy River I forgot to ask for your numbers). While the numbers of farms and farmers in Canada has been shrinking, the area of land in crops has been growing. Between 1981 and 2001, a 17.5% increase of land in crops brought the national total to nearly 90 million acres. Farms in Ontario were part of this trend, working nearly 60 thousand acres more land in crops in 2001 than 20 years before. This is an impressive 9 million acres of cropland in Ontario. While no one likes filling in forms, failure to help collect accurate information may actually shoot farmers in the foot.

columns from the past - Is it time to get rid of the ministry of agriculture, food and rural affairs?

Is it time to get rid of the ministry of agriculture, food and rural affairs?

Rural voice column October 2006 by John Beardsley originally written September 19, 2006

Agriculture is the only industry in Ontario which has a ministry set up in opposition to the primary producers. The Petrochemical industry represents far less than 2.5 percent of the population yet you don’t have ministry officials telling them how to run their industry. The Auto industry is the largest job creating and economic driver in the country yet they don’t have to worry that the government will throw a monkey wrench in their day to day business. We only have a Ministry of Agriculture because historically it represented the majority of the voters at the turn of the century. It is the same to day in that you have the Women’s directorate and the minister of multiculturism to grab votes. But Agriculture is no longer viewed as a segment of society to be respected and rewarded for the social stability it provides . Farm leaders have long fought tooth and nail to preserve the ministry for agriculture because at least we have a voice at the cabinet table. But do we really. If it is run by someone who doesn’t believe in agriculture if we constantly have to train and educate new ministers who aren’t farm raised or even have any experience in the industry we are losing ground. The Outdoor farm show is a great way to get a bird’s eye view of modern agriculture. There are hundred s of exhibitors showing off the latest and greatest. You can go to the seed companies and actually see the latest hybrids growing in the field plots right behind their tents. It reminded me once again that agriculture is doing really well , its just farming that isn’t fun anymore. There is an apocryphal saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Maybe the drastic change needed in Agriculture isn’t that we allow the government to do nothing and watch 2 thirds of the farmers go out of business. I’m sick and tired of the paternalistic attitude of the Ministry experts that helped get agriculture into this mess by getting rid of the market revenue program and replaced it with the CAIS program. I‘m tired of explaining to the public that the risk management program isn’t a handout but rather an insurance program to counteract the U-S farm bill and dumped corn and soybeans.

Probably one of the disconnects for the ministry bean counters is that conceivably the rmp could have cost the provincial government 60 percent of the existing OMAFRA budget. Well if we get rid of the ministry we can fund RMP Farming. This may seem an extreme position but not one I take lightly. Why not abolish the ministry and use money to fund rmp to be administered by Grain & Oilseed groups (in Quebec the mighty UPA administers the ASRA program thus getting funds to primary producers with less waste and hastle and no money being stolen oops I meant redirected to fund other parts of the Government . Any tribunals such as Farm Products marketing commission could be transferred to ministry of industry. Extension specialist could be transferred to U of Guelph as in the United States co-operative extension. Manure police can be transferred back to min of environment.

No other industry has a ministry which seems to have the sole purpose of opposing and hampering the industry at every turn

we certainly don't need a useless minister stopping a commodity organization of raising fees to make up the shortfall caused by the ministry’s own incompetence( if rmp had been instituted then more corn grown then more checkoff then no need for increase) also the total lack of help by OMAFRA when the corn producers were trying to get countervail imposed that would have had same effect as rmp raising revenues

Ministers salary could also go towards helping rmp

ag canada can administer cais program etc. the provinces that were thus administer never had bse aid clawed back and the inventory changes where figured out much quicker.

besides it will bring the cabinet back to a nice even number of thirty

I’m not sure what this would save but I’m sure out of an operating budget of 564 million we can find the three hundred million needed for the Risk Management program.

Never knew how to spell Blogger an now I are one

I am sure that the first Blog is rarely ever anything worth writing home about and I know I will probably use this to archive my columns from the Rural Voice. They aren't currently online so that will be a good thing.