Holding seeds
Regarding the article in the Sept. 27 issue, “Seed rules changing for organic farms,” I would like to challenge farmers to think about the comment made: “While some farmers can, at a basic level, do this type of evaluation and selection, few have the skill, time and resources to accurately evaluate the numerous plant characteristics required.”
Since agriculture began, farmers have been the world’s selectors of plants, based on their local considerations of taste, climate, yield and other ‘needs for merit’ for selection. People who have made the connection between the seed, the soil and themselves have an ability to make decisions about what characteristics are valuable for their needs and their end-use users.
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?
Granted, not all farmers have taken the time or found the urgency to develop these skills. But if they want to have the seed in their hands, and not in corporate hands, they will find the time to talk to old timers and some young farmers who have kept these skills alive.
And they will begin looking at their crops in a different light.
It is considered a farmer’s right in United Nations documents to choose the variety of crop and save the seed of the chosen crop.
This basic fundamental right of farming is being taken away when farmers are forced to buy regulated crop varieties.
It is also a modern fashion in the developed world to hand over the power of seed development and selection to plant breeders and other specialists.
Yet in many parts of the world programs that empower farmers, such as the Seeds of Survival program in Ethiopia, are successful because the selection is done on farm with farmers (often women, who do the seed selection for the coming year in many countries of the world.)
This year we began working with organic farmers in Alberta, who grew modern and historic varieties of wheat so they could begin to learn the power of observation and field selection. And, they began to develop their own supplies of seeds for their organic farm needs.
As these organic farmers realize they do indeed have the skills and abilities, they will hopefully work as equal members in participatory research work with breeders, researchers and other interested parties. There are examples of co-operatively owned seed businesses in Europe and the U.S. that can be explored for Canada.
The hand that controls the seed controls the food supply. I spend my energies reminding farmers that we can still hold our own seeds and we have a right to our own seeds. Perhaps we will one day have to fight for this right but today we can still reasonably freely hold our own seeds in Canada.
I will spend the winter offering workshops to interested farmers, in learning how to do field evaluation, selection and set up community seed banks….
– Sharon Rempel,
Heritage and Organic Crops and Seeds Researcher,
The Garden Institute of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alta.
Working closely
The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies is in no way “denigrating the concerns of the agricultural community” in our support of Bill C-15, as Peggy Strankman of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association claimed in her Sept. 27 letter to the editor.
On the contrary, CFHS works closely with the agricultural community on the development of Codes of Practice, humane slaughter and other issues.
Ms. Strankman states that groups such as hers are simply seeking to keep the same legal protections as they currently have. Under Bill C-15 they will have the same legal protections.
Like the existing Criminal Code provisions, the bill will continue the offence of willfully or recklessly causing an animal unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. The law permits a person to cause substantial pain, suffering or injury to an animal if it is necessary to achieve a lawful purpose. This is no different than today’s provisions.
Section 8(3) of the Criminal Code specifically allows the use of any common law principle with respect to circumstances, justification or excuse for an act, including “lawful excuse”. There could be no better excuse than compliance with reasonable laws and regulations.
Farmers, hunters, fishers and research scientists have nothing to fear with Bill C-15, unless they are cruelly abusing animals well beyond appropriate measures in the circumstances. We would hope that industry groups would want such individuals to be punished.
Ms. Strankman’s fears that “nuisance prosecutions” will result from Bill C-15 are unfounded. That has not been the case in the past and animal rights activists will have no more powers than they currently have.
Instead, well-trained SPCA inspectors will continue to carry out their statutory mandate to lay cruelty prosecutions, subject to the stringent criteria of criminal law and the gate-keeping role of crown attorneys who refuse to prosecute improper cases.
The proposed amendments in Bill C-15 are strongly supported by the public and by many animal use industries that agree with the increased sentences and prohibition on animal ownership, as well as restitution for humane societies.
The CFHS hopes the members of Parliament who vote on this bill will understand it better than some of the fear-mongering industry groups that want to maintain the status quo. This bill is about protecting animals from cruelty and abuse, not about threatening legitimate animal use industries.
– Shelagh MacDonald,
Canadian Federation
of Humane Societies,
Nepean, Ont.
Monsanto replies
I was surprised to read Nick Parsons’ letter to the editor in which he raised questions about genetically modified crops (Open Forum, Oct. 4).
Last June, I had a very useful and constructive conversation with Nick Parsons about what he described as his good early stand of Roundup Ready volunteer canola, resulting from his previous year’s planting of Roundup Ready canola, and his desire to harvest this volunteer crop.
This conversation followed a visit to Mr. Parsons’ farm by Monsanto farm business representative Gary Coy, who had taken the time to respond to Mr. Parsons’ inquiry and meet with him in person.
During the course of our conversation, I was pleased to hear Mr. Parsons relate the benefits Roundup Ready technology has brought to his farm over the past three years. While I recognized Mr. Parsons was facing some difficult times on his farm, we both agreed that attempting to harvest whatever volunteers he had on his farm was just not a sound agronomic move.
I also took the time to relay to Nick that while we appreciated his offer to pay an additional $15 per acre to access the Roundup Ready technology, this offer was not consistent with the way Monsanto has chosen to market its technology as per the Technology Use Agreement, and therefore we could not entertain his offer.
Mr. Parsons should have been aware of the nature of our conversation as I followed up with a personal letter dated June 1, 2001.
– Calvin Sonntag,
Monsanto Canada Inc.,
Winnipeg, Man.
Helmet use
I am writing in response to an article by Wendy Dudley that appeared in the Sept. 6 edition of The Western Producer, “Mandatory helmets urged for riders”.
Our local 4-H club purchased riding helmets for all of our members two years ago. Use of the helmets is mandatory in our 4-H Light Horse Club by all parents, leaders and members.
Safety is the major factor for the use of our helmets, with the ages of our members ranging from five to 17 with all levels of experience. Anyone can fall off a horse and get a head injury.
In July, members of our 4-H club attended a district 4-H competition. When the judge gave his positive and negative criticism on the western pleasure competition, he said that our members got marks against them. “They were not in proper western attire, they should have cowboy hats on and not helmets. Safety is important, but when you are an experienced rider you shouldn’t have to wear a helmet.”
This judge boasted of judging many competitions, shown draft horses, and been to many more shows than we could have imagined. He was not a greenhorn who has never judged a 4-H show or not been around horses before.
The parents and the members were upset with the judge for his comments and thoughts, but it has not stopped our club from its helmet use.
If we lose points at competitions, so be it. Helmet use will continue. Thank you to The Western Producer for increasing the knowledge of the general public on helmet use.
– Amanda Crashley,
Big River, Sask.
