Organic cash
Re: “Sask. report urges organic expansion,”, WP, Oct. 11. Cathy Holtslander, director of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, may be pleased with the recommendations put forward by Lon Borgerson, regional development minister, but as a precertification organics farmer, I am not.
The pioneer organic farmers – the ones who have been following the organic philosophy for several years, who have faced ridicule from conventional farmers, who had the vision and foresight to see the need for organic products, and who went through the lean years opening up organic markets – should not have their markets diluted by publicly funded Johnny-come-latelies.
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?
The long term organic farmer has opened up the markets and from my experience, is more than willing to share (his) knowledge and experiences to ease the burden of transition, but they should not be funding potential organic farmers through their tax dollars.
The cash input for promotion and marketing of organics would be welcomed but in the end it would only create another government agency that would require ongoing, excessive funding and would provide no returns to the farmers it was created to supposedly assist, and in fact, take money out of their pockets.
– Linda McKenzie,
Zehner, Sask.
Greedy guys
In response to Conrad Johnson’s letter to Open Forum, Oct. 4, the vote for barley was very well manipulated. It did exactly what the anti-Canadian Wheat Board farmers wanted, but it was not a true 62 percent, as so many farmers that voted for dual marketing did not know what would be the outcome of dual marketing.
You cannot sit on a fence forever. You’re bound to fall one way or other, as would happen with dual marketing. The vote should have been clear either for single desk selling or open market.
And yes, Conrad, you could be right, 75 percent of production comes from 20 percent of producers. They have enough bushels or volume to negotiate prices with the grain buyers and get a better price, but how about the 80 percent of those other farmers?
Most of them need other income to supplement their farm-raised cattle or off-farm work, then haven’t time to watch the markets. So they rely on the CWB to do their marketing. …
I have to share with you what a machinery dealer once told me. He said (he would) much rather sell 50 100 horsepower tractors to 50 small farmers than sell five to five big farmers. The 50 small farmers make (him) happy as they are always satisfied. The five big farmers are never satisfied. They will always complain of their tractors not performing well.
In my view, the 20 percent that despise the monopoly of CWB are most of them greedy.
– Daniel Ruest,
Admiral, Sask.
Biofuel promise
Re: WP, front page, Oct.25, “Higher crop prices take toll on biofuel.”
Biofuels, both ethanol and biodiesel, continue to hold great promise for this province and this country. It is undoubtedly the most exciting opportunity in recent agricultural history.
Like any new industry, there are challenges and the Saskatchewan Biofuels Development Council is working with all its stakeholders to address these challenges.
Profitability is dependent on the price of feedstocks and oil; both are commodities in a global market which have experienced increased prices in 2007.
The opportunity to produce value-added products from a biofuel industry into niche markets to increase profitability are also available to us due to the large biocluster research capabilities and innovation we have in Saskatoon.
The development of a biorefinery model will be important. For example, one of the potential feedstocks for biodiesel is canola, a highly valued feedstock due to improved cold flow properties and lubricity, which can also produce high value products such as lubricating and penetrating oils.
The meal from canola holds great promise as a value-added feed for the aquaculture industry.
Saskatchewan, the second largest producer of oil in Canada and the first province with an ethanol mandate, is situated in the heart of the many feedstocks for a biofuels industry. The SBDC will continue to work diligently to advance a sustainable biofuels industry in Saskatchewan that will benefit both our economy and our environment.
– Judie Dyck, PAg
President,
Saskatchewan Biofuels
Development Council
Syngenta ads
To Syngenta: That was quite an ingenious and creative series of fictitious articles you advertised during the last few weeks in our newspapers. I must admit you pulled us in and had our attention.
Although it was quite clever, it was also quite devious. You had many people fooled into believing these were real live blessings from an anonymous source.
It disappoints me that you went to all that trouble to string us along, yet no one was helped at all, just a big scam. I got so excited at the chance to read the paper each week to see who the next fortunate family was to receive a blessing. It was nice to read something positive for a change.
I thought, finally a break for the farmers, about time they got rewarded for all their hard work. Farmers could use a break like that and I was so happy for them.
What a let down. It was so disheartening. You would have restored some faith in man’s kindness instead of bursting yet another bubble of hope in mankind….
Maybe some of us seem a little naive to believe these stories to be true, but what’s wrong with trying to believe there’s still good in people and wanting to bring out the best in them?
You had such an awesome opportunity to really do something good. Too bad you passed it by, all in the name of big business and advertising.
– Lorrie Plewis,
Swift Current, Sask.
CAIS chaos
Besides governments changing the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization formula to seriously drop all farmers’ margins by going to an accrual margin instead of staying with the present cash margin, there’s the Net Income Stabilization Account garbage too.
Because of NISA replacing 15 percent of the top tier of CAIS, you and every other farmer in Canada will now be paying 7.5 percent of that tier more towards your own farm crisis. …
And for those farmers that got droughted out or flooded out, who have no net eligible sales the last couple of years, no crop and no crop insurance, they just lost another 15 percent off of their CAIS cheque if they would have triggered it.
Farmers would have been far better off leaving the old CAIS program alone, staying with a cash margin and without adding the NISA garbage to it.
The majority of government funding pertaining to NISA and the feds’ so-called cost of production goes to the farmers who had bumper crops – missing the hurt again, because just like CAIS, NISA isn’t based on an individual farmer’s losses….
In everyone’s calculations, please don’t forget to calculate downwards the 7.5 percent less you will be getting out of NISA this year versus the old CAIS/new CAIS because the 7.5 percent out of the 15 percent that you do get out of NISA is your own money that you put in….
Both the CAIS change to accrual margins and the adding of NISA were and are designed to seriously cut agriculture funding by both governments to farmers.
And if farmers can’t make a profit from the marketplace due to our systems’ faults where most years the input boys and middlemen take more than the farmers can get from the marketplace.
And if governments refuse to support farmers, share Canada’s wealth and return some monies stolen from the farmers via our system and our governments, then the only other option left to farmers is to declare bankruptcy …
I choose the government option because I’m forced to.
It’s why I’m pushing for mandatory accrual income tax at the farmgate, so governments do their option right by basing farm support on losses and not on anything else that doesn’t work….
– Lloyd Pletz,
Regina, Sask.
Not the answer
In response to “Ag has obligation to explore options,” WP, Oct. 11: The editorial suggests agriculture has an obligation to defeat the four horsemen – climate change, obesity and malnutrition, energy security and the supply of fresh water.ÂÂ
Agriculture can’t defeat these four horsemen by treating symptoms of poor agricultural practices. The chemical and biotech community are profiting from treating the symptoms of poor agriculture practices, not by curing them.
The success of curing many of these problems lies in soil health and species’ diversity.
Soil health is a result of balancing the chemical, physical and biological properties of the soil. Soil health is not just nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur.
Species’ diversity is important for nutrient cycling, pest management and population resilience to changing conditions.
Large intensive operations focus on specialization and product consistency. This reduces species’ diversity and resilience to external factors. Sustainability requires diversity and integration.
The chemical and biotech communities’ success lies in poor soil health and reduced species’ diversity. Poor soil health and reduced species’ diversity are reflected by poor yields, poor crop/animal (human) nutrition/health, weeds, disease, insect pests and less resilience to extreme weather.ÂÂ
If a producer wants to farm with poor soil health and reduced species’ diversity, the chemical and biotech companies can assist them. The creation of limited diversity crops and animals controlled by a few multinational corporations is not a sustainable or forward thinking solution to the world’s problems.
– Garrett Osborn,
Craven, Sask.
