Elect farmers
The incompetency of the majority of the government officials absolutely appalls me. I question the knowledge and the background our [federal] agriculture minister has after hearing about the problems we are having with mad cow disease.
I am a rancher and after all of the problems that Britain had with this disease, our government allowed feed products for cattle into the country that contained animal byproducts. I know this for a fact because we almost bought some.
Through Britain, the whole world learned that animals with rudiment stomachs cannot tolerate eating anything but vegan food. This was common knowledge. Then tell me why I was able to purchase a lick for our cattle that was imported from the United States that contained protein derived from sheep?
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?
Upon reading the label, I did some research, and contacted the company. The name of the product and company all slip my mind; it was six years ago. I questioned the company rep about the contents of their product.
He said that it may contain byproducts of animals. I asked what this meant and the person said that there was a chance that lamb or sheep byproducts could be in the lick.
This was enough for me and I refused to use it for my animals. Likewise, I informed all of our neighbours of the content and it was not used by many.
However, because the government approved this product, many people felt that it was safe and assuming so, used it. I think that many people trust the government and the policies that are supposedly designed to protect us, and just don’t read labels.
My complaint is with the elected officials who are placed in positions that they have no background in and pass laws that they have no knowledge about. We need farmers and ranchers in the agriculture departments in the positions of power so that these small but potentially dangerous loopholes are caught.
Yes, there were no cow byproducts in this lick, but it did contain animal protein, which is from my knowledge, and what common sense tells me, unsafe and unnatural. A form of this disease is found in sheep too and yet sheep byproducts were allowed in this lick.
It annoys me because the farmers are looking like they don’t know what they are doing when they are just trusting the politicians and their guidelines. The media has even been frowned upon for causing a frenzy.
When do we look to the source of the problem and demand responsibility from our elected leaders? Put the right people in office. Not book-educated people [but] people with actual experience. They need knowledge gained from life experience.
Put agriculture people in the agriculture departments, financial people in finances, etc. What a concept.
The problem is we put too much trust in these people and they just don’t get it.
– Joanne Myrol,
Sunset House, Alta.
Wasted animals
Re: R. Baillargeon’s letter, (Tragic disease, Open Forum, June 12.) Mr. Baillargeon you are right on. What you’re saying is exactly what I think , a “nutritional disease.”
[It] makes much more sense. It’s sheer stupidity to slaughter so many healthy animals, looking for a needle in a haystack. Anyone who calls himself a livestock man and ships an animal in for slaughter when [the animal is] not looking and acting right is money greedy, not a true cattleman.
The coyotes should have had that animal for a meal or it should have been put down and buried. I’ve spent years working and feeding animals. A change of feed and nutrition can work wonders sometimes.
Such a cost. Terrible.
– R. Bohush,
Sherwood Park, Alta.
BSE and elk
I suggest the Canadian Food Inspection Agency put a moratorium on the slaughter of cattle exposed to and suspected of being exposed to BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) until they lower the monetary compensation payable under present policy. This would reflect fiscal responsibility as taxpayers would suffer a smaller burden.
So what if the disease spreads, human health is put at risk and the economic viability of the cattle industry goes down the tube?
This was the approach that CFIA took in dealing with tuberculosis in the elk industry in 1990-91.
The TB in the elk industry in Canada had come from the United States by way of a faulty import protocol. CFIA had done no risk assessment for importing this class of animal. There was no national program for control and eradication of TB and brucellosis in cervids in the U.S. until 1994.
In 1988, TB was confirmed in animals on a ranch in Alberta. There were approximately 350 elk of U.S. origin on this premises. Policy called for the eradication of all animals on the premise. CFIA didn’t even test the elk or bison on the premises at that time, but allowed the disease to spread throughout the industry for two years before dealing with it.
Then, to be fiscally responsible, the minister of agriculture put cap values on the animals eradicated. These values reflected approximately 50 percent of market value.
The burden of loss was shifted from the public, despite public employees’ neglect, to the producers. Cap values for elk destroyed for disease was further reduced a year later to approximately 15 percent of market value. These low values were allegedly the result of a cattlemen’s lobby….
These low values frustrated CFIA’s ability to deal with chronic wasting disease when it appeared in elk in 1995, again from U.S. imports without risk assessment. It took five years for CFIA to deal responsibly and effectively with the disease.
CWD in deer is equivalent to BSE in cattle. Although the CWD index herd was eradicated in 1996, CFIA failed to eradicate imported animals from the endemic area in the U.S. as they had done for cattlemen when BSE occurred in animals imported from Great Britain in 1993.
CFIA didn’t monitor death loss or test heads from dead animals on the source farm at Hillmond for five years while they were developing a strategy for dealing with the disease. CWD was allowed to spread for five years.
Over 8,000 animals were slaughtered at the taxpayer’s expense.
We lost our elk, hogs, dogs, cats and horses in 1990-91 to TB, which was directly linked to the infected premises in Alberta. We lost our industry due to the presence of CWD in 1995 to 2001.
I fully understand the plight of the cattlemen, the economic impact disease can have, the economic impact SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) has had on Toronto’s economy, and the perceived and actual health threat that diseases pose to the public.
If there are concerns that CWD played a role in BSE in cattle, review the facts outlined above. I would like to thank CFIA and the cattlemen for their concern for the elk producers. If BSE compensation packages are to be ordered, perhaps the authorities will take another look at the elk industry.
– Dale Conacher,
Mervin, Sask.
Go organic
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1785 that small landholders are the most precious part of a state, and a democratic state and democratic liberties depend upon democratic ownership of the land.
In the new age of globalization, powerful corporations are trying to change all this. Agribusiness giants have displaced people who used to live on the land and grow their own food and these people are now landless, cashless, homeless, dependent and hungry.
Today we can clearly see the social and environmental problems industrial farming has and still is creating. Why do we allow this to happen? What can we do about it?
Organic farmers are leading the way and we as individuals can make a difference with every food purchase.
Every time we buy organic food, we help to stop the damage to our agricultural communities, reduce public health problems and reduce or eliminate air, water and soil contamination.
Organic food is not only a lifestyle choice, it is also an ethical one. Organic agriculture is the first step towards a total agricultural turnaround.
Organic farming will feed the world population in the future. Organic farming will stop the devastation of our planet and increase the soil fertility.
We cannot afford the real high cost of industrial food forever. The worldwide epidemic of pesticide poisoning resulting in higher rates of cancer, infertility and birth defects has to be brought under control.
Every time we encourage friends, relatives and neighbours to “go organic,” we are not only saving human lives, but we are also helping to stop the steady deterioration of our planet.
– Henry Dahle,
Wynndel, B.C.
Trade talk
Wheat, softwood lumber, blueberries are all under the gun of U.S. interests striving to curtail imports from Canadian producers.
The U.S. economic terrorism being applied through their actions is aimed directly toward Canadian sovereignty, and it seems that our political elite continue to follow the belief that diplomatic negotiations will eventually succeed in overcoming these difficulties.
The name of the game for the U.S. interests is “my way, or the highway,” and when will Canadian negotiators get the message?
We witness the obvious loss in sovereignty when we see our political elite travelling to Washington to “discuss” the proposed law to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis. A delay in the implementation of this legislation is apparently dictated by interests outside of the borders of Canada.
If the U.S. is so hung up on their accusation that Canada unfairly subsidizes our resource industries, perhaps we as Canadians wishing to pacify the U.S. should consider the extension of GST to all our resource exports.
After all, all Canadians are required to pay GST on their purchases, why should we “subsidize” our neighbours to the south by exempting them from paying this tax on their imports?
[Prime minister Jean] Chrétien and his cabinet have the power and mandate to act on behalf of all Canadians. Might it be possible for our government leaders to take action without asking permission of U.S. senators and Congress beforehand?
All that may be necessary to satisfy the U.S. accusers of unfair Canadian subsidization is for Canada to bring in legislation which would eliminate the GST exemption on Canada’s exports of oil, natural gas, wheat, lumber, electric power, forestry pulp, paper and logs, petroleum-based chemicals and potash.
The influx of tax funds would go a long way in financing any adverse effects which the U.S. would inevitably wish to apply to teach Canadians not to mess with their economy.
Since the bulk of our forestry, and petroleum industry in Canada is controlled by U.S. interests, the resident Canadian executives of these corporations might act as advisers to their U.S. bosses to get their government representatives on the track of dealing fairly on their free trade agreements….
One way or the other, we may be seen to be complying to the wishes of the U.S. to tax our production, and secondly, the money collected would remain in Canada as opposed to having it accumulate in the U.S. treasury from their import duties.
– Vern S. Bretin,
Leduc, Alta.
Road work
As your readers will no doubt be aware, this spring has been a particularly tough one for the thin membrane surface (TMS) highways in many areas of rural Saskatchewan. The normal spring break-up problems that cause surface failures have been made worse by the prolonged spring, repeated freeze-thaw cycles and excess moisture received in many areas.
These highways are in their weakest state during the spring. Soft spots, frost boils and local failures have always been a common spring occurrence.
However, I want to assure your readers that department crews are out making temporary repairs to keep the roads safe until more permanent repairs can be made as the roads dry out.
This spring, department crews have already applied nearly 997,000 litres of asphalt and nearly 26,000 tonnes of gravel to provide over 647,000 square metres of seal coat patching to repair the roads. And crews have worked more than 25,000 hours repairing spring TMS road damage.
Many of your readers will know that TMS highways were surfaced 30 to 40 years ago when there was very little heavy truck traffic in order to give us relatively inexpensive dust-free, mud-free roads. These TMS highways have served the province well, but with the shift in grain haul from rail to road, TMS highways cannot meet the demands of increased trucking….
In 2003-04, the provincial government will meet its commitment to improve 800 km of TMS highways to a paved standard over the past three years. Since 2001, the government has invested over $76 million in maintaining TMS roads in Saskatchewan. A full 97 percent of provincial gasoline taxes are invested in Saskatchewan infrastructure, including highways.
The province is committed to improving the level of service on our 7,000 km of TMS highways and is rebuilding our rural highways to ensure a strong transportation system for the future.
We are also committed to working with local government to manage truck traffic on our TMS highways. There are partnerships with 39 municipalities to restrict weights on 21 sections (covering more than 500 km) of TMS highways throughout the province….
– Mark Wartman,
Minister of Highways
and Transportation,
Regina, Sask.
Quota values
I am writing to object to the lack of balance given the dairy industry in your June 12 edition.
Many people seem to think quotas and their values are an advantage only to those who own them. All other sectors of agriculture must also make huge capital investments to operate.
The millions of invested dollars quoted in your article look small compared to a grain farmer, for example, with enough land and equipment to sustain a farm family not wishing to work off farm.
Urbanites also have quotas related to many businesses. They call them franchises, and I’m sure any car dealer or fast food restaurant owner will tell you they don’t come cheap.
No consideration was given in your article to the fact dairy farmers work long hours, year round with few breaks. How does this compare to the total yearly workload of others?
I would think George Morris economist Al Mussel would be more educated than to state that the dairy industry has guaranteed profits. The fact is, less than one half of Canadian dairy farmers receive a price above their cost of production. This is similar to many other sectors of agriculture who must subsidize their farms with other methods, such as off-farm income, or living off their depreciation.
Consumers also benefit from our Canadian quota system by having a safe and ample supply of dairy products year round. U.S. consumers pay more for dairy products while U.S. producers get approximately the same for producing it as they did 25 years ago. They do receive large subsidies, though mostly hidden. Canadian dairy farmers are not subsidized.
New Zealand dairy farmers must purchase shares in a processing plant for $1,000 per cow on which no dividends are paid. They then get less than one half the price for milk that we do, and milk costs more in the stores than it does here.
The dairy business may look attractive to outsiders, but never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes.
– Alan Holt,
Bashaw, Alta.
