Too much pressure
As a Canadian beef producer, I wonder just exactly how much pressure can be heaped upon us.
On March 2, R-CALF, a group of American beef producers, managed to bring a court case against us, managing to stop the border opening on March 7 to Canadian beef. In court, the president of R-CALF told the judge that their objection to the reopening was based on science, that the science isn’t there to allow Canadians to say their beef is safe, and thus start the flow of cattle over the border once again. …
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
But it’s what was said outside the courtroom once their victory was assured that showed the true colours of R-CALF. Several of them were asked whether they would eat Canadian beef. One man in particular allowed a sly smile to slowly spread across his face before he answered, “yes, I would.” …
You know, besides the economic pain and suffering that has been inflicted on us by our American counterparts in the States, I have struggled this whole past year to understand how these fellow cattlemen can ruthlessly drive us into the ground, all the while … watching what they know are healthy, viable beef herds across Canada be rendered worthless by their rhetoric.
They constantly state that their cattle are healthy, all across the U.S., but Canada’s are diseased and should not be allowed to contaminate their glorious herds.
Constantly claiming that is like saying two rivers that flow from the same ocean aren’t the same water, like saying twins don’t come from the same mother….
Maybe in the end what’s so hard to take for us Canadians is watching how hard these former comrades in the beef business have treated us. They know in the depths of their hearts, if they were honest, that they simply used this to drive their competition into the ground.
As they watch their kids eat supper or tuck them into bed at night, do they ever wonder how Canadian farm kids are faring? As they pay their bills and watch their profits soar, do they ever think of their fellow farmer in Canada, poring over his bills late into the night, wondering how he’ll ever keep feeding his worthless herd, buy his kids’ school clothes, manage to stretch himself over the two jobs he now has off the farm and how his wife will manage because she now works off the farm too?…
A little while ago we were with some fellow Canadian producers at an auction. The prices were so low they were insulting. As we sat there talking, the question came up: if the shoe was on the other foot, would we work so vigorously to destroy them?
The answer, and you can believe it or not, was a general consensus that we would not. … And we decided in the end that it was because we were Canadians. We just weren’t as cutthroat about it.
Ñ Kathy Quiring
Dalmeny, Sask.
Easy job
Further to your Alberta Beef Producers article (WP, March 3) that they hired, and then after six weeks, fired their new general manager, whose resume included a “doctorate in business management” from Gibraltar…
I hereby apply to Alberta Beef Producers for the general manager job. My resume includes mention of my T-shirt from the University of Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, a Canadian “university.”
The job should be fairly easy, just fleecing the ranchers a $3 per head check-off fee and keeping beef promotions focused on sucking up to the Americans instead of the real demand-market of testing every beef for BSE and selling volume to Japan and Europe.
Ñ Ken Poulsen,
Cowley, Alta.
Organics and GM
The headline for the front page article by Sean Pratt, “Organic standards allow for GM,” Feb. 17, is sensational and misleading.
I also take issue with Alex Avery, who is named in the article as saying the organic industry is being hypocritical on this subject. Avery is a well known foe of organic agriculture and research director for the Center for Global Food Issues, an arm of the right wing American think-tank, the Hudson Institute, of Saving the World With Plastics and Pesticides fame.
Such an inflammatory headline coming from Mr. Avery would be understandable; from the pen of Mr. Pratt, it is unacceptable.
Contrary to what this article headline states, GMOs are specifically prohibited by the standards of the organic agencies certifying in Canada, period.
For instance, standards of the Organic Crop Improvement Association have GMO products on the prohibited materials list, and a further specific GEO/GMO prohibition stating: “The use of products made from organisms that have been modified by genetic engineering techniques (as defined by the Materials List) is prohibited and is in direct violation of the philosophy and intent of OCIA.”
Further, article 9.1.3 says: “Prohibited (P) materials may not be used on land in the certification program, or in the production of any crops grown on land in the certification program. At least three years must pass after the use of any prohibited substance before land, which has received that substance, may be certified.”
The Western Producer and Mr. Pratt should make an immediate retraction and apology for the damage this inaccurate headline may cause to the organic sector.
Ñ Doug Bone,
Elrose, Sask.
Organic concern
I was very surprised and alarmed to see the headline “Organic standards allow for GM” in the (Feb. 17) edition of the WP.
I have been involved in the organic sector for many years and I know that statement to be false. I think your headline is inflammatory and inaccurate.
I believe Janine Gibson has been misquoted, or quoted out of context, as I know Janine to be a strong defender of organic agriculture, which has no place for GMOs.
I believe you owe readers and the organic sector as a whole an apology, and a public retraction and correction is in order.
Ñ Cathy Holtslander,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Editor’s Note: The Producer has confirmed that Gibson was not misquoted in the article.
Help ag
The current crisis in agriculture in Canada comes as no surprise to people on the land.
This most resilient sector has seen drought, BSE, frost, low prices and escalating costs of production. The Statistics Canada farm income data clearly agrees with this situation on Canadian farms.
The question that people who farm ask the most is why this relatively new country of Canada chooses to find every excuse at its means not to adequately support this country’s family farms.
Family farm intergenerational transfer is given priority in most countries except Canada. In Canada the position of the government is “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” What the Canadian government doesn’t realize or refuses to realize is that sustaining family farms is critical in the survival of communities in Western Canada.
The power of Canadian government is in central eastern Canada, and it is expected that Western Canadian farmers find their own solutions to their problems, but the logistics of our isolation from the world markets and the outright unfair trade subsidies must factor into the equation.
Canada must face the choice of helping to keep Canadian agriculture viable or let it slowly and painfully whither away.
Ñ John Olinik,
Kelliher, Sask.
Subsidize farms
I find it amazing, the docile, patient attitude of our farm communities. Every day our farmers read and hear the depressing forecast of the new crop year and how again they can look forward to zero earnings this coming year, the result of low crop prices and high production cost….
Farmers are necessary. We should appreciate them more. They are, after all the producers of our food. It puzzles me greatly why our federal government is ignoring our farmers’ cry for help.
The system in force to assist the struggling farmer does not seem to improve the situation very much. Why don’t we have a system, a safeguard that will protect the growers of our food? Is there maybe a secret policy for driving the farmer off his land?
I know it sounds preposterous, but what other reason is there for neglecting and starving our farm communities to the point of driving them to the cities or even to commit suicide?
All over the world, farmers are subsidized… Why does Canada hesitate to institute a generous farm subsidy, a subsidy large enough to make it possible for farmers to have a decent living?…
Ñ Harm Roelfsema,
McTaggart, Sask.
Be heard
A recent survey done by Ipsos-Reid clearly indicates that Alberta farmers are being short-changed or maybe are short-changing themselves when it comes to having a voice in the agricultural industry.
Of the producers questioned, 42 percent either don’t know or don’t believe that they are being represented effectively by anyone. This is the highest number in the country.
The strongest level of support is in Quebec with its well financed and mandatory membership organization, UPA. There, 70 percent of the producers feel that their general farm organization effectively represents their views with governments and industry.
I suppose that I should feel pretty discouraged by these statistics, considering the amount of effort that I and the rest of our board have put into working for Alberta farmers over the past year.
Actually, I am not at all surprised and quite motivated by this report. I very much doubt that the 42 percent of producers don’t want to be represented by anybody.
Agriculture is a pretty discouraging industry right now. Farmers and ranchers have developed conservative and responsible business plans only to have revenue numbers slashed and input costs skyrocket. Most of these factors are out of our control.
To top it off we have a stabilization plan that is cumbersome and ineffective in some scenarios. There is a level of frustration that is extremely high and only seems to worsen as time goes on.
It is high time for the producers of Alberta to speak out with a strong voice and we need the support of our provincial government in helping this happen. …
If our association is not the group to do the job, then let’s form an organization that can. We need to take the good ideas that are discussed at the coffee shops of Alberta, make them into agricultural policy and let our government know what our industry needs to make it work.
I encourage farmers to tell their MLAs that this has gone on long enough. We need a strong and well-funded farm organization to represent the Alberta industry and we need it now. Be heard.
Ñ Bill Dobson,
President, Wild Rose
Agricultural Producers
Paradise Valley, Alta.
Picking bottles
What do a Saskatchewan farmer and someone picking bottles have in common? More than you think.
I have scientific proof that finding one bottle per acre of ditch will net me a living equal to a million dollar farm.
The agricultural policy framework, under renewal, will make $2,400 available when the farmer puts up $107 to do a farm business report. It will generate all the ratios that our bankers use.
The program will also do a comparison of your farm to Saskatchewan agriculture statistics, rating you under several categories. In efficiency our farm was rated at above the top 25 percent in Saskatchewan. That efficiency netted our farm a 25 cent per acre profit.
With a one bottle per acre return on picking ditches when I pick bottles from my farm to Regina, I have the potential to double or triple my farm income.
The best part of this diversification is the set up cost is minimal with the chance of success being incredible.
So the next time you see some one pick up bottles, don’t laugh at their ways. Instead just ponder the thought that they are making a living equal to that of a Saskatchewan farmer with $1 million less investment.
What does that tell you?
Ñ Randi Ellis,
Hazlet, Sask.
Farming hours
Re: Response to Noel McNaughton’s article, WP, Feb. 10: Mr. McNaughton, you may be a speaker, but you are not a good listener or reader, or else you are ignoring the facts.
You mention farmers whining, as you put it. You mention urbanites or city dwellers working a 60-hour week to make a living. I have been around for a number of years and there are not that many working those kinds of hours.
In 1960, a farmer’s crop for one year, say 2,000 bushels of wheat, would pay for a new tractor, car or truck. An urbanite at $1.50 an hour for 2,200 hours could also buy a new car or truck. Well guess what: an urbanite working 2,200 hours in 2005 at $15 per hour, can still buy a new truck or car. But a farmer with 2,000 bushels of wheat, even at $5 a bushel, can only buy one third of a car, and $5 a bushel is the high side…
Mr. McNaughton, could you please explain to us whining farmers why we should not have nice homes with relatively good equipment to farm with? Are we second or third class citizens?
If you know anything about business and farming at all, you would know that in many instances farmers were forced into new machinery because they could not get loans to finance older machinery….
No, Canadian farmers should not whine, as you call it. What they should do is what European farmers did.
Take their trucks, tractors and combines out onto the main highways of the Prairies and bring this country to a standstill. Then maybe we would be recognized for what we are….
It is not that difficult to figure out that if you added 10 cents to each loaf of bread used in the country, and put it on wheat used domestically, you could almost double the price per bushel a farmer would receive.
Contrary to what you might think, we whiners are only asking for a fair share so we can make an honest living without government handouts. Now I guess I had better stop whining.
Ñ Ken Leftwich,
Esterhazy Sask.
Ten percent
Views from poverty point. Last night I was entertained at our local CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization) study night. Dear prime minister Paul Martin, it is just too complicated for me. I have a better plan.
Would any one citizen in Canada deny a Canadian farmer 10 percent of the retail value of the food that farmers’ crop produced?
Example: Yesterday I hauled 1,100 bushels of No. 2 HRS (wheat) 13.5 or better to the elevator. That 1,100 bu. was immediately shipped to Quebec. There it would be made into roughly 66,000 loaves of bread, sold for roughly $1.50 per loaf.
I was paid $3,000, which generated roughly $100,000 worth of bread. I think I should be entitled to 10 percent retail dollar value. Try to make decent bread without it. Paul Martin, you owe me $7,000. Simple.
This formula could also be used for durum, pulse crops, canola and the big one, the liquor business. We deserve to be treated with dignity by the rest of the country’s citizens.
Ñ Miles Moore,
Outlook, Sask.
Terminator gene
I feel compelled to comment on the use of “science based,” in the statement, “To just categorically say we are going to ban the whole lot, well that’s just not a science-based decision and it’s not one the government of Canada could support” (WP, Feb. 17.)
If the terminator gene technology was intended purely for research and would stay there, the decision might be OK. The technology, however, will impact agriculture, the environment and the consumer and any decision regarding it necessarily relates to science, technology, society and the environment combined.
It is inadequate to make the kind of decision that is contemplated here from the perspective or “radar screen” of a subset of science alone, in this case molecular genetics alone.
The dilemma about radar screens and science-based decisions was painfully illustrated by the BSE crisis. The feeding of cattle parts back to cattle is now recognized as a serious contributor to BSE. As scientists, shouldn’t the nutritionists have seen this coming? Many would say no, not automatically. The nasty protein involved in BSE was outside of the nutritionists’ “radar screen.”…
If the phrase is invalid, why is it used? The phrase can be strategically useful to advance a particular agenda because it rests on society’s high level of trust in science.
In the policy arena, the phrase is rarely used to elicit healthy discussion, but more often to squelch questioning.
This misrepresentation of “science-based” does a disservice to future developments in biotechnology and insults our collective intelligence.
Those who observe biotechnology from the sideline and hope for an open and orderly development of this potentially promising enterprise lose what trust they have. They are then inclined to ban the whole lot until such trust can be established.
Ñ Joe Schmutz,
Saskatoon, Sask.
To the Editor
To Class B shareholders of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, be sure to vote in behalf of yourself as a Class B shareholder through your proxy mailing. Be sure you have a say in the conversion from Class B to the new proposed type of common shares. The vote will be March 23 so get them in.
Ñ Mark Schumacher,
Delisle, Sask.
Snow symbols
The problem of warning snowmobilers against driving on unharvested fields and on winter crops sensitive to packed-down snow seems to need a better solution.
It’s a pain for farmers to have to make many signs and put them up, so perhaps a simpler, universally recognized symbol is in order.
For example, a certain colour of flagging tape on stakes, maybe every 100 metres. And I think wooden stakes are better than steel because if the flag comes off, they will be less of a potential hazard for snowmobilers.
I think farmers and snowmobilers should work together on this, since it is in everyone’s best interests. Maybe farm groups and snowmobile clubs can take the lead in getting this established, so that the case where snowmobilers simply did not know a crop was there will at least be eliminated.
Ñ Howard Boldt,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Dumb deals
In reply to Mr. Pokorney recently regarding barley prices, (Open Forum, Feb. 3) Mr. Pokorney should have hired a lawyer to see what happened to his barley cheque. It could have been lost in the mail or his malt barley could have been downgraded to feed if it was contaminated with animal or bird droppings or treated seed when a grain car isn’t cleaned properly.
Forty years ago, barley could be bought for as low as 25 cents per bushel as local feedlots got in truck loads at this low price.
If Mr. Pokorney got 63 cents a bushel, he got more than a lot of other farmers. It isn’t compulsory to sell to the wheat board. Mr. Pokorney could sell to feedlots or make beer with his barley. One bushel of barley will make 300 bottles of beer. …
I’ve stored grain for seven years until I got a price that suited me. I suppose the government will have to create a special department to look after farmers who make dumb deals when they sell their grain.
Ñ E. B. Fischbuch,
Spennymoor, Alta.
Other fuels
Kelly Shockman’s Feb. 3 letter to the editor deals with every farmer’s nightmare, which is the rising cost of fuel in a cash-strapped farm economy. This is likely to get worse as existing petroleum supplies dwindle.
A number of community groups are organizing and planning to build expensive infrastructure developments to produce alternative fuels to replace petroleum gas and oil. The final products will not be cheap.
We forget what past history can teach us. We’ve been here before when OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) cut off oil supplies in the 1970s to North America. As a consequence a great deal of experimentation took place and a number of articles published in the old Harrowsmith magazine detailed every aspect relating to the various innovations that arose about alternative fuel production, with a broad focus on alcohol as a viable energy source….
A lot has changed since the 1970s that would facilitate farm self-sufficiency to meet energy needs. Now there is geothermal to heat homes and workshops, solar panels and straw bale buildings and much more. Regulations would have to change if two or three farmers working together wanted to develop their own fuel.
Alcohol is a cleaner burning fuel than petroleum fractions or vegetable or animal fats. There is also the mind-boggling picture to consider of farmers with high impact costs, planting vast fields of oilseed or food crops so that they can continue to plant vast fields of oilseed or food crops.
Henry Ford said it best: “One acre of potatoes will provide enough energy to cultivate that acre for 100 years.” Sugar beets, mangels and Jerusalem artichokes are even more productive.
Ñ Ellen Francis,
Silver, Man.
SWP questions
Is Saskatchewan Wheat Pool management always right?…
The co-op principle of one member, one vote is very important. It was the basis of equality for farmers and thus the need for the very existence of SWP. To remove this principle means we have come full circle in the evolution of SWP. We are back to the 1920s. If we move away from that basic principle, we are again letting ourselves be run by the market where farmers will have little influence. …
Mayo Schmidt, chief executive officer of SWP stated: “The delegates have been asked to do a number of things over the past few years, and they’ve always done the right thing. And we expect they will continue to do that.”
The obvious questions is, have the delegates done what was right or what management wanted them to do? As a delegate who questioned much of the spending under Don Loewen’s era, I have a bit of a problem accepting the board’s and management’s viewpoint all the time.
As a SWP delegate I represent the holders of the Class A shares. Although there are other interests to consider, one has to ensure that the customers’ interests must get a fair representation. Otherwise, no business can exist without customer-members. …
Only once we figure out why SWP has fallen from 50 to 20 percent market share and agree to the changes producers want, can we grow this company back to its former stature.
Ñ Darrell Dutchak,
Rama, Sask.
Price parity
Parity of prices is one avenue those on the right should pursue.
1972 was the modern day economics turning point, the year that income to the producer began to decline. Grain and oilseed prices have remained quite steady while input costs have been on the rise and continue to go up. If another benchmark was established and the primary producer would be compensated for the increase of all these, he could claim this money was rightfully his.
The constant prattle these days from politicians is, you must be more efficient. This has been with us ever since the inception of our nation. One would wonder why an agricultural minister would want high office when he comes to power and only can come up with this statement when quite frankly it is an insult.
It is Marxist. You must do more with less. This short fall is because of interest on money. When you borrow money, you receive what the banker gives you. Nowhere in the system is the interest created. This is the basis of inflation. Parity of prices would correct this.
The free trade mantra is no subsidies in agriculture. This insane logic will bankrupt the farmers worldwide, the proof of which is everywhere. Parity of prices. The time is now.
Ñ Ralph Dawson,
Elmworth, Alta.
Wholesome food
The reason Canada should not be selling water to other countries is found on page 57 of the Feb. 3 Western Producer, “Rural water problems loom: biologist.”
I wholeheartedly agree with C. F. Bentley of Edmonton, (Open Forum, Feb. 10.)
So many children are overweight compared to generations past, but take a look at the size of yards in all of the new city developments. Building lots are smaller, houses are much larger. Where are the children to play besides on the street or indoors?
Society has made going to a park or playground unsafe unless an adult goes along.
I count myself fortunate to have been able to raise my children in houses of modest size with a yard large enough for lots of games plus a vegetable garden. They were not fed fast food and junk food. I’m sorry to say they are not raising their children the same way and will no doubt pay the price. We are what we eat.
I will continue to raise as much produce in a backyard garden as I can and cook the old-fashioned way, from scratch.
Ñ Elaine Sloan,
Morinville, Alta.
Digs and geese
In response to Mr. Van Isman’s letter in the Feb. 10 issue entitled “Big dig,” the writer claims I was not accurate in expressing my views on the dredging project where millions of cubic yards of soil were excavated out of Regina’s Wascana Lake, along with millions of dollars which were dug out of taxpayers pockets.
In my Jan. 20 letter, I had questioned the politics and the “eco-logic” behind the big dig, along with another proposed project where the banks of the Saskatchewan River will be altered for a business development venture in Saskatoon, a venture which will also receive several millions of dollars of federal money.
The point is simple. What’s for the goose on Wascana Lake should be good for the gander in rural prairie settings. …
Is it possible that when one dredges up muck from a lake bottom, toxins which have been dormant for years might be released into the environment? Past experience in places such as the Great Lakes has taught us that quite often, it’s best to let sleeping toxins lie.
While we’re on the topic of “eco-logic,” why do city geese winter in Wascana Lake instead of flying south with the rest of the rural migratory birds?
The answer is simple. The birds were originally attracted to the warm water which was discharged from a nearby power station, and into Wascana Lake, which prevented a large portion of the lake from freezing. I doubt that this practice would be greeted with open arms if indeed it were brought to the attention of a serious ecological study.
Mr. Van Isman, our views might differ simply due to the fact that our rural drainage and dredging projects don’t receive multimillion-dollar handouts from Ottawa for extensive environmental studies. And as for our rural geese, they know it’s time to head south when the water freezes over.
Ñ John Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
PB & J
Recently I have been phoning the Canadian Wheat Board requesting information on a interim payment on spring wheat.
Fate had smiled on me in the 2004 crop. All my wheat has graded No. 1 and 2. I thought I had grown a quality crop and would get paid for it accordingly.
Boy, was I out in left field. After a few phone calls to the CWB, I found out the other day how much the payment was. What a joke. There seems to be $1.20 left in the PRO and we get $12.10 a tonne on No. 1. Then I inquired about No. 2, $4.50, which by my calculator works out to 12 cents.
Wasn’t this the group that wanted to see that farmers get their money faster through the year? Or perhaps they are a little shy to give us more, in case they have to backhaul some grain halfway across the country at a cost of millions?
Also the value-added incentive on milling wheat was supposed to be issued in two payments, one at the end of December and the other at the end of August. It is now close to March, I still haven’t received 2004’s premium.
Maybe when Agline or my local credit union phones next time I’ll give them (the CWB) number. A couple calls ago, I stated jokingly that I was getting low on bologna and wondered when the interim payment was being sent. She had a reply something to the effect that if I still had bologna things weren’t that bad, wait till you get down to the peanut butter and jam.
I’m starting to believe that the CWB not only controls our grain sales but our diet also.
Ñ Darrell Kerpan,
Kenaston, Sask.
