ILO debate
Congratulations to Ken Wasmuth (Open Forum, April 18) for publicly
stating his opinion and participating in the ongoing intensive
livestock operations debate. Unfortunately Ken got many of his facts
wrong, which doesn’t help the quality of the debate or the credibility
of his opinions….
Ken says the only people promoting a fivefold increase in hog
production in Alberta are “fear mongers and loose cannon politicians” –
an interesting and not necessarily inaccurate way of referring to Ralph
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Klein, who stated the infamous 12 million hog goal.
Regardless of the numerical goals of the Alberta government, there is
no doubt that they have been relentless promoters of large ILO
developments, even when these developments did not meet their own
provincial standards. And that’s a fact, Ken….
Ken suggests that “protesters advocating the status quo” want
“increased commerce to maintain their community” but with no effect on
water, air quality, local infrastructure or social impact.
This is errant nonsense. I’ve attended some half-dozen major ILO
hearings, and although there are sometimes fear-monger presentations,
there has increasingly been some extremely credible scientific evidence
presented about the construction and/or siting of proposed operations,
which has left the developer and (Alberta Agriculture) with egg all
over their faces.
Not all proposed developments are well planned and sited, and it is a
democratic process, Ken, in which those who have legitimate concerns
are able to voice them.
Ken then lists seven reasons why ILOs are good: local ownership,
economic diversity, family farm diversity, increased rural population,
fertilizer/organic matter production, feed grain markets and proper
regulation.
No one can argue that the ILO industry has been good for the feed grain
market in Western Canada. Few will argue that well-managed ILOs with:
proper construction to minimize risk of water contamination;
appropriate application of manure at crop uptake rates; humane
treatment of both livestock and staff; suitable controls for odour,
dust and flies so as not to overly inconvenience neighbouring residents
are a reasonable way to produce meat and should be encouraged.
These operations can contribute to community development by using local
grain, truckers, labour, suppliers, etc.
It is the developments, large or small, that do pose a hazard to air,
land or water, that do disrupt neighbours, that don’t contribute to the
local community, that do import feed, livestock and labour, export
livestock and leave massive amounts of manure behind – it is these
developments that people legitimately find so offensive.
If Ken Wasmuth is suggesting that a majority of livestock developments
in Western Canada meet his seven motherhood criteria, he is naive. If
the livestock operations in which you have invested meet your criteria,
Ken, that’s great. But … take a look around the rest of the world and
start working to make sure that everyone else in your industry meets
those criteria too. …
– M. G. MacGregor,
Hughenden, Alta.
The plan
Anyone can grow all the pork and all the potatoes that they want, but
eggs are a product that is a hard shell to break. The Agri-Food Council
has told me to get into the “plan” – the supply management system.
Well, I am in the system, I am in the plan. The plan does not give the
non-registered producer a voice, voting privileges or the ability to
expand, but it still requires the non-registered producer to follow
their management laws.
The plan restrains non-registered producers from getting larger but
expands quota producers’ numbers to maintain the system. Where is the
logic in this?
If the system is shutting out all small producers, eliminating
competition, and reducing profits for the small producer in order to
maintain profits for a very select group of quota producers, then the
system is not supply management. It is a monopoly.
…The monopoly has gotten so large that it now dictates to government
how it will be run. The Agri-Food Council supports present board
practices and now wants to change the regulations to keep small
production off the shelf.
I do not believe that the small producer is inefficient nor a threat to
the system. We need to enlarge our flocks to maintain a decent return
on investment.
This will not flood the market with eggs. The attitude that it will
destroy supply management was decided by government run boards, not
small producers, when they did not follow the laws established by the
federal-provincial agreements.
This plan was designed to help small producing farms with selling their
product and to establish a base price.
Now, it is forcing small producers out because profits are too narrow
with the 299 bird regulation.
Furthermore, do people that read this article want eggs that are not
mass produced and processed? Do consumers want to be able to go to a
farmers’ market, local grocer or the local farmer to get a fresh,
high-quality product?
If the system continues to operate as it is at present, you will not
have that opportunity. It is time to speak out concerning food that is
supply managed. … Tell (the politicians) that you want the choice of
whose eggs you buy. The system is limiting you in the choices you can
make.
– Curtis Jensen,
Milden, Sask.
Moral values
In Toronto right now it is a $180 fine to walk your dog without a
leash. Some say this is inhumane to not be able to let a dog run down
at the beach or in the park. It seems to be getting tougher on animals
to be who they are.
I saw a man and his wife the other day in an open field with a front
end loader skinning a cow they had just slaughtered while all the other
cows looked on in horror.
How can we impose human standards or values on animals when many people
around the world, nor in this country do not have them for themselves?
Animals may be suffering. But I’ll tell you people are suffering more.
The money would be better spent on teaching people moral values.
Healthful values.
Then the animals they keep would just naturally be better cared for by
them.
We got the cart before the horse on this one.
– Marcel St. Germain,
Garland, Man.
GMO labelling
The growing of Roundup Ready grains has attracted much attention. In
theory, growing Roundup Ready grains is a very positive breakthrough.
Some growers insist the economics are not there. The third group
insists Roundup Ready canola is a noxious weed. Roundup Ready fans
insist that is an absurd complaint since a 2,4-D like product will
eliminate every trace of Roundup Ready canola.
Herbicides have been developed which will control some weed in
conventional canola. If one were to take Roundup Ready fans seriously,
one then would have reason to expect these herbicides will also control
volunteer Roundup Ready canola in seeded conventional canola crops.
That doesn’t happen.
Some nations suspect GMO products threaten good health. Exercising
caution, those nations limit or refuse to buy canola from nations where
Roundup Ready canola is grown.
No wonder there is a growing organization which demands GMO labelling.
Labelling is a cost.
If Roundup Ready canola is superior to conventional canola, Monsanto
and Roundup Ready canola growers will rush to absorb the extra costs
relating to GMO labelling and separate storage that they may prove
their beliefs.
If Ottawa has any real concerns about democracy and questionable health
matters, it will enforce the above prescribed GMO proposals. Neglecting
to do so indicates that monopolistic private corporate interests like
Monsanto constitute the real governing force.
– Stuart Makaroff,
Saskatoon, Sask.
No money
(The) Canadian Wheat Board faces challenge by the U.S. government
sparked by the North Dakota Wheat Commission.
They say the CWB is inconsistent with obligations under World Trade
Organization North American free trade. They have tried eight times and
we win every time because the CWB plays by the rules.
If anybody is dumping, it is the U.S. They come here to sell their
canola and take our low price in Canadian dollars. Then they get paid
by the U.S. government, which gives them double pay. Then they say the
CWB is the cause of their low price.
They get paid subsidies that cost the Canadian farmer. We get low
prices. We need a subsidy here to keep going like the U.S. farmer. He
can come here and buy machinery at 50 percent off U.S. dollars.
We have no farm policy like the U.S. Mr. (Jean) Chrétien, our prime
minister, is away flying to Europe in his new $100 million jet, giving
away money to Africa and other countries. Mr. (Lyle) Vanclief said
there’s no money for farmers.
Where is the money coming from that Mr. Chrétien is spending? He does
not care about Western Canada. The only time the policy will change is
when we get rid of the Liberal government.
It will never happen because the other two parties can’t get together,
and fight among themselves. Our new farm policy is hundreds and
hundreds of auction sales and bankruptcies.
– Jack Pawich,
Cartwright, Man.
ILOs’ impact
I read Mary MacArthur’s article, “Alta. group formed to oppose ILOs”,
and was quite impressed until I got to the last two paragraphs with the
comments of Barry McFarland, MLA for Little Bow.
I was at this meeting and the majority of the people, by far, were
concerned with the problems confined feeding operations, (CFOs) or
intensive livestock operations, pose to the environment and the general
health of our communities in Alberta.
If Barry McFarland does not think that the environment, health, water
quality and supply, soil and water pollution due to untreated liquid
manure over application, loss of surrounding land values, loss of
family farms to corporate ILOs and the stench created from same is a
concern of the majority of Albertans, then he is either ignorant of the
issues, totally brainwashed by corporate feedlot and hog factory
operators, been told what and what not to say by the Alberta
government, refuses to believe reports from universities from all over
North America including the University of Alberta on the issue or
doesn’t care.
The Alberta government has announced that they want to increase hog
production in this province by 10 million head and I for one do not
think there is a way to do this using untreated lagoon based hog
factories.
In Iowa (15 million hogs), the problem is out of control. Some counties
have put moratoriums on new hog factory construction and expansion of
existing ones due to the great public outcry of concern of pollution
and odour.
In Alberta the government has seen this problem of county control
holding up ILO development and has taken most siting and development
permit control out of their hands and put it into the hands of the
Natural Resources Conservation Board.
I believe that this will lead to the paving of Alberta with corporate
ILOs and that the NRCB will not have the manpower or resources to
address the huge resulting problems.
Mr. McFarland, and everyone else with his opinions, should have to live
for a year or two about one-half mile downwind from a 10,000 head hog
factory.
This may be the fastest way of educating people who have no respect for
the rights of the rural minority.
– Greg MacLennan,
Sedgewick, Alta.
Subsidy bids
Doug Hedley’s comment about subsidies being bid back into land (“Canada
heeds U.S. report on subsidies”, WP, May 31) begs the questions: Hasn’t
supply management always been criticized for doing just exactly that?
Why is it OK to have the benefits of supply management bid back into
land, but not the benefits for grain farmers?
– Stephen Thompson,
Clinton, Ont.
